2012-06-27 10:34 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
2012-06-26 18:49 keltezéssel, Alvaro Herrera írta:
Excerpts from Boszormenyi Zoltan's message of mar jun 26 12:43:34 -0400 2012:
So, should I keep the enum TimeoutName? Are global variables for
keeping dynamically assigned values preferred over the enum?
Currently we have 5 timeout sources in total, 3 of them are used by
regular backends, the remaining 2 are used by replication standby.
We can have a fixed size array (say with 8 or 16 elements) for future use
and this would be plenty.
Opinions?
My opinion is that the fixed size array is fine.
Attached is the version which uses a registration interface.
Also, to further minimize knowledge of timeouts in timeout.c,
all GUCs are moved back to proc.c
I'll go set the patch "waiting on author". Also, remember to review
some other people's patches.
I will look into it.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
Does anyone have a little time to look at the latest timeout framework
with the registration interface and the 2nd patch too? I am at work
until Friday next week, after that I will be on vacation for two weeks.
Just in case there is anything that needs tweaking to make it more
acceptable.
Thanks in advance,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
http://www.postgresql.at/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
