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

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 09:22:49PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Agreed, polling is good enough for 8.5.

Is this a TODO yet?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate