Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=2zFZBYK-vRRi9nRmG3h_e0aCQM1C76bJYUwy_5AFo0Mg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads without stale data (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal: "Causal reads" mode for load balancing reads
without stale data
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> (BTW, isn't the select call in libpq_select >> lacking an exceptfds set, and can't it therefore block forever when >> there is an error condition on the socket and no timeout?) > > Hm. I think you're right here when timeout is NULL... It would loop infinitely. > @Andres (in CC): your thoughts on that regarding the new > WaitEventSetWaitBlock()? The same pattern is used there. That was a red herring. I was confused because SUSv2 and POSIX call this argument 'errorfds' and say that sockets *also* tell you about errors this way. (Many/most real OSs call the argument 'exceptfds' instead and only use it to tell you about out-of-band data and possibly implementation specific events for devices, pseudo-terminals etc. If you want to know about errors on a socket it's enough to have it in readfds/writefds, and insufficient to have it only in errorfds/exceptfds unless you can find a computer that actually conforms to POSIX.) -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: