Hi, On 2016-03-17 09:01:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 0001: Looking at this again, I'm no longer sure this is a bug. > Doesn't your patch just check the same conditions in the opposite > order?
Yes, that's what's required > 0004: > > + * drain it everytime WaitLatchOrSocket() is used. Should the > + * pipe-buffer fill up in some scenarios - widly unlikely - we're > > every time > wildly > > Why is it wildly (or widly) unlikely? > > The rejiggering this does between what is on which element of pfds[] > appears to be unrelated to the ostensible purpose of the patch. Well, not really. We need to know when to do drainSelfPipe(); Which gets more complicated if pfds[0] is registered optionally. I'm actually considering to drop this entirely, given the much heavier rework in the WaitEvent set patch; making these details a bit obsolete. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
