On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-01-14 11:31:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> I think your idea of a data structure the encapsulates a set of events >> for which to wait is probably a good one. WaitLatch doesn't seem like >> a great name. Maybe WaitEventSet, and then we can have >> WaitLatch(&latch) and WaitEvents(&eventset). > > Hm, I'd like to have latch in the name. It seems far from improbably to > have another wait data structure. LatchEventSet maybe? The wait would be > implied by WaitLatch.
I can live with that. > So effectively we'd create a LatchEventSet feLatchSet; somewhere global > (and update it from a backend local to the proc latch in > SwitchToSharedLatch/SwitchBackToLocalLatch()). Then change all WaitLatch > calls to refer to those. Sure. > Do we want to provide a backward compatible API for all this? I'm fine > either way. How would that work? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
