Re: Streaming replication status
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-01-12T14:20:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 15:13, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> >>> I'm not sure whether poll(2) should be called for this purpose. But >>> poll(2) and select(2) seem to often come together in the existing code. >>> We should follow such custom? >>> >> >> Yes. poll() is usually more efficient, so it's preferred, but not all >> platforms have it. (On the other side, I think Windows might have >> only poll and not select.) >> >> >> > > No, other way around, I'm fairly sure. Yeah, the emulation layer has select, not poll. It basically translates the select into what looks very much like a poll, so maybe we should consider implementing poll as well/instead. But for now, select() is what we have. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/