On 13 May 2012 02:48, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > One possible answer is to just legislate that callers mustn't specify > WL_SOCKET_WRITABLE without WL_SOCKET_READABLE (either just as > documentation, or probably better with an Assert check). The existing > callers would all be fine with this, and I'm not sure whether there will > ever be a case where we'd like to wait on a write-only socket.
+1 . Let the improbable requirement of being able to wait on a write-only socket actually emerge before we engineer a solution. I think that we might have avoided accepting the poll()-based implementation in the first place if these subtleties were considered earlier, since IIRC the justification for introducing it was rather weak. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
