Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportableimplementation of background worker start) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportableimplementation of background worker start)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobThdDW8pYpUeNgWpNzpF3+bUNg05pDboAuurhBG2Wg9Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Removing select(2) based latch (was Unportable implementation of background worker start)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2017-04-20 17:27:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> In short: yeah, let's nuke the WAIT_USE_SELECT implementation.
>>> It's dead code and it's unlikely to get resurrected.
>
>> Ok, cool.  v10 or wait till v11?  I see very little reason to wait
>> personally.
>
> I feel no need to wait on that.  Code removal is not a "new feature".

One can imagine a situation in which code removal seemed to carry a
risk of destabilizing something, but the change under discussion here
seems more likely to improve stability rather than to regress
anything.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A note about debugging TAP failures