Also, do we want to move the retry loop to pgwin32_recv? That seems
like a good idea. I'm not sure users of recv should ever have to deal
with WSAEWOULDBLOCK as it's not really an error.
Pete
>>> "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> 04/06/06 9:58 pm >>>
> > Attached are two patches which in combination make pg_stat_activity
> > work reliably for us on Windows.
> > ...
> > pgstat.patch removes the delayed destroy code for backends,
> databases,
> > and tables. Database and table entries are cleaned up immediately
> > upon receipt of the appropriate message.
>
> I'll go ahead and apply the delayed-destroy-removal part
> (just to HEAD for the time being --- seems a bit risky to
> apply it to the stable branches). The Windows-specific
> change sounds like it may need more review.
Actually, I think that's mostly me being confused and taking others
with
me ;-)
It's definitly a problem, and we have a solution there. The one thing
I'm still a bit concerned about is: Do we need a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS,
and do we need an upper limit on the spinning. In theory we can spin
with 100% CPU usage, which is not good. So we should either spin a
limited amount of times, or we should perhaps introduce a tiny delay?
//Magnus
---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that
your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
