On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 03:27:13AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >Shouldn't we use pg_usleep to ensure portability? it is defined for
> >front-end code. But it returns void, so the error check will have to be
> >changed.
>
> Attached v3 with pg_usleep called instead.
>
> >I didn't see the problem before the commit I originally indicated , so I
> >don't think it has to be back-patched to before v10.
>
> Hmmm.... you've got a point, although I'm not sure how it could work without
> sleeping explicitely. Maybe the path was calling select with an empty wait
> list plus timeout, and select is kind enough to just sleep on an empty list,
> or some other miracle. ISTM clearer to explicitely sleep in that case.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]
The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Heikki,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
