On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10 May 2011 09:45, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> I think we need to refactor the function into something like: >> >> #define WL_LATCH_SET 1 >> #define WL_SOCKET_READABLE 2 >> #define WL_SOCKET_WRITEABLE 4 >> #define WL_TIMEOUT 8 >> #define WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH 16 > > While I agree with the need to not box ourselves into a corner on the > latch interface by making sweeping assumptions, isn't the fact that a > socket became readable or writable strictly an implementation detail?
The thing about the socket being readable/writeable is needed for walsender. It needs to notice when its connection to walreceiver is writeable (so it can send more WAL) or readable (so it can receive a reply message). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
