Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think you should just submit this with the code that uses it, so we
>> can evaluate whether the overall concept is a good one or not.
> This was split out from Synch Rep based on my suggestion to submit
> separately any parts that are separately committable, but that doesn't
> seem to be the case given your comments here. I guess the question is
> whether it's necessary and/or desirable to put in the effort to create
> a general-purpose facility, or whether we should be satisfied with the
> minimum level of infrastructure necessary to support Synch Rep and
> just incorporate it into that patch.
General-purpose facility *for what*? It's impossible to evaluate the
code without a definition of the purpose behind it.
What I actually think should come first is a spec for the client
protocol this is intended to support. It's not apparent to me at
the moment why the backend should need non-blocking read at all.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
