Hi,
On 2016-03-17 09:01:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 0001: Looking at this again, I'm no longer sure this is a bug.
> Doesn't your patch just check the same conditions in the opposite
> order?
Yes, that's what's required
> 0004:
>
> + * drain it everytime WaitLatchOrSocket() is used. Should the
> + * pipe-buffer fill up in some scenarios - widly unlikely - we're
>
> every time
> wildly
>
> Why is it wildly (or widly) unlikely?
>
> The rejiggering this does between what is on which element of pfds[]
> appears to be unrelated to the ostensible purpose of the patch.
Well, not really. We need to know when to do drainSelfPipe(); Which gets
more complicated if pfds[0] is registered optionally.
I'm actually considering to drop this entirely, given the much heavier
rework in the WaitEvent set patch; making these details a bit obsolete.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
