Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3286.1492642586@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. Do you have a more-portable alternative?
> I was thinking in a WaitEventSet from latch.c.
Yeah, some googling turns up the suggestion that a self-pipe is a portable
way to get consistent semantics from select(); latch.c has already done
that. I suppose that using latch.c would be convenient in that we'd have
to write little new code, but it's a tad annoying to add the overhead of a
self-pipe on platforms where we don't need it (which seems to be most).
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: