Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1coxCe-00014h-T5 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:06:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1coxCe-0000J3-FU for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:06:20 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1coxCd-0000Ig-NF for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:06:19 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1coxCa-0006z1-O8 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:06:19 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v2HJ6Ehx025727; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:06:14 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Petr Jelinek cc: Andrew Dunstan , Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use asynchronous connect API in libpqwalreceiver In-reply-to: <15361.1489771359@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <19403.1488586564@sss.pgh.pa.us> <34d98fbf-9195-04d2-b85a-634d6952ffdf@2ndquadrant.com> <19815.1488600693@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4144256b-dc4f-892c-a720-71f6e7b9ac87@2ndquadrant.com> <3ffe98f7-d2ed-65c6-51f3-4d97ffd6e312@2ndquadrant.com> <34591606-976a-bbee-8eda-778c1e1fc52f@2ndQuadrant.com> <10458.1489763266@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5b6a6d6d-fb45-0afb-2e95-5600063c3dbd@2ndquadrant.com> <13398.1489768097@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15361.1489771359@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:22:39 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <25725.1489777574.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:06:14 -0400 Message-ID: <25726.1489777574@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org I wrote: > Petr Jelinek writes: >> Thanks, now that I look at it again I think we might need to do cycle >> with the occurred_events and returned_events and not return on first >> find since theoretically there can be multiple sockets if this gets >> called directly and not via WaitLatchOrSocket(). I don't have mental >> power to finish it up right now though, sorry for that. > I think WaitEventSet is only required to identify at least one reason > for ending the wait; it is not required to identify all of them. Also, I see the header comment for the Windows version of WaitEventSetWaitBlock says it really only ever reports one event anyway. So there seems no need to work harder than this. Pushed with cosmetic adjustments. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers