Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> My point is that we should replace such polling loops with something
>> non-polling, using wait/signal or semaphores or something. That gets
>> quite a bit more complex. You'd probably still have the loop, but
>> instead of pg_usleep() you'd call some new primitive function that waits
>> until the shared variable changes.
>
> Maybe someday --- it's certainly not something we need to mess with for
> 8.5. As Simon comments, getting it to work nicely in the face of corner
> cases (like processes dying unexpectedly) could be a lot of work.
Agreed, polling is good enough for 8.5.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
