Peter Geoghegan writes:
> 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.
I'm not exactly sure that the select-based implementation i
On 13 May 2012 02:48, Tom Lane 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
After further consideration, I think the patch I committed here:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=31ad6553646c81f3ce8fccf8aef1a1134a7864c7
may have been an overly hasty band-aid rather than a good fix.
The question that needs to be faced is: what should WaitLatchOrS
