Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170806221042.jbgtks277gjs3l6m@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] Replication to Postgres 10 on Windows is broken
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2017-08-06 18:04:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Here's a prototype patch implementing what Tom outlined. > > This bit is flat wrong: > > - int io_flag; > + int io_flag = WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH | WL_LATCH_SET; > > io_flag has to be *just* the I/O condition, because we use it in a test > after the WaitLatchOrSocket call. Hm, right. Wouldn't be particularly consequential, but... I'd actually consider just removing the if around /* If socket is ready, advance the libpq state machine */ if (rc & io_flag) status = PQconnectPoll(conn->streamConn); the only thing that protects us against is calling PQconnectPoll() when the latch has been set. Hardly problematic. > > Anybody have an opinion about adding ifs for WL_SOCKET_CONNECTED to > > !win32 implementations rather than redefining it to WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE? > > I fear it would complicate matters greatly, because you'd have to figure > out which of the two flags to signal back after detecting socket writable. > I think defining it as equal to WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE is fine. Well, I'd have said, signal the one(s) back that have been requested. But I'm ok with the current state, adding a bunch of pointless branches didn't strike me as worthwhile... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: