Re: timeout of pg_receivexlog --status-interval
От | Sawada Masahiko |
---|---|
Тема | Re: timeout of pg_receivexlog --status-interval |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoD2qgxhoAj+rxx9jGxzNS_7mqPpf-AFjxAGB_im1CTBsQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: timeout of pg_receivexlog --status-interval (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: timeout of pg_receivexlog --status-interval
Re: timeout of pg_receivexlog --status-interval |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> At 1047 line of receivelog.c:CopyStreamPoll(), we set NULL to >> timeoutptr variable. >> if the value of timeoutprt is set NULL then the process will wait >> until can read socket using by select() function as following. >> >> if (timeout_ms < 0) >> timeoutptr = NULL; >> else >> { >> timeout.tv_sec = timeout_ms / 1000L; >> timeout.tv_usec = (timeout_ms % 1000L) * 1000L; >> timeoutptr = &timeout; >> } >> >> ret = select(PQsocket(conn) + 1, &input_mask, NULL, NULL, timeoutptr); >> >> But the 1047 line of receivelog.c is never executed because the value >> of timeout_ms is NOT allowed less than 0 at CopyStreamReceive which is >> only one function calls CopyStreamPoll(). >> The currently code, if we specify -s to 0 then CopyStreamPoll() >> function is never called. >> And the pg_receivexlog will be execute PQgetCopyData() and failed, in >> succession. > > Thanks for reporting this! Yep, this is a problem. > >> I think that it is contradiction, and should execute select() function >> with NULL of fourth argument. >> the attached patch allows to execute select() with NULL, i.g., >> pg_receivexlog.c will wait until can read socket without timeout, if >> -s is specified to 0. > > Your patch changed the code so that CopyStreamPoll is called even > when the timeout is 0. I don't agree with this change because the > timeout=0 basically means that the caller doesn't request to block and > there is no need to call CopyStreamPoll in this case. So I'm thinking to > apply the attached patch. Thought? > Thank you for the response. I think this is better. One another point about select() function, I think that they are same behavior between the fifth argument is NULL and 0(i.g. 0 sec). so I think that it's better to change the CopyStreamPoll() as followings. @@ -1043,7 +1043,7 @@ CopyStreamPoll(PGconn *conn, long timeout_ms) FD_ZERO(&input_mask); FD_SET(PQsocket(conn),&input_mask); - if (timeout_ms < 0) + if (timeout_ms <= 0) timeoutptr = NULL; else { Please give me feed back. Regards, ------- Sawada Masahiko
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: