Re: Synchronization primitives (Was: Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby)

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> My point is that we should replace such polling loops with something
> non-polling, using wait/signal or semaphores or something. That gets
> quite a bit more complex. You'd probably still have the loop, but
> instead of pg_usleep() you'd call some new primitive function that waits
> until the shared variable changes.

Maybe someday --- it's certainly not something we need to mess with for
8.5.  As Simon comments, getting it to work nicely in the face of corner
cases (like processes dying unexpectedly) could be a lot of work.
        regards, tom lane