On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 10 August 2011 01:35, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Actually, I'm nearly done with it already. Perhaps you could start >>> thinking about the other polling loops. > >> Fair enough. I'm slightly surprised that there doesn't need to be some >> bikeshedding about my idea to treat the PGPROC latch as the generic, >> per-process latch. > > No, I don't find that unreasonable, especially not since Simon had made > that the de facto situation anyhow by having it be initialized for all > backends in proc.c and set unconditionally by some of the standard > signal handlers. I am working on renaming it to procLatch (I find > "waitLatch" a bit too generic) and
That was the direction I wanted to go in anyway, as you guessed. > fixing a bunch of pre-existing bugs > that I now see in that code, like failure to save/restore errno in > signal handlers that used to only set a flag but now also call SetLatch. Thanks for looking at the code; sounds like we nipped a few would-have-been-bugs there. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
