The original coding here insisted that callers manually cancel any prepared
sleep for one condition variable before starting a sleep on another one.
While that's not a huge burden today, it seems like a gotcha that will bite
us in future if the use of condition variables increases; anything we can
do to make the use of this API simpler and more robust is attractive.
Hence, allow these functions to automatically switch their attention to
a different CV when required. This is safe for the same reason it was OK
for commit aced5a92b to let a broadcast operation cancel any prepared CV
sleep: whenever we return to the other test-and-sleep loop, we will
automatically re-prepare that CV, paying at most an extra test of that
loop's exit condition.
Back-patch to v10 where condition variables were introduced. Ordinarily
we would probably not back-patch a change like this, but since it does not
invalidate any coding pattern that was legal before, it seems safe enough.
Furthermore, there's an open bug in replorigin_drop() for which the
simplest fix requires this. Even if we chose to fix that in some more
complicated way, the hazard would remain that we might back-patch some
other bug fix that requires this behavior.
Patch by me, reviewed by Thomas Munro.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2437.1515368316@sss.pgh.pa.us
In the wake of commit aced5a92b, the semantics of these results are
a bit squishy: we can tell whether we signaled some other process(es),
but we do not know which ones were real waiters versus mere sentinels
for ConditionVariableBroadcast operations. It does not help much that
ConditionVariableBroadcast will attempt to pass on the signal to the
next real waiter, because (a) there might not be one, and (b) that will
only happen awhile later, anyway. So these results could overstate how
much effect the calls really had.
However, no existing caller of either function pays any attention to its
result value, so it seems reasonable to just define that as a required
property of a correct algorithm. To encourage correctness and save some
tiny number of cycles, change both functions to return void.
Patch by me, per an observation by Thomas Munro. No back-patch, since
if any third parties happen to be using these functions, they might not
appreciate an API break in a minor release.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=0NWKehYw7NDoUSf8juuKOPRnCyY3vuaSvhrEWsOTAa3w@mail.gmail.com
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4d wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
Condition variables provide a flexible way to sleep until a
cooperating process causes an arbitrary condition to become true. In
simple cases, this can be accomplished with a WaitLatch/ResetLatch
loop; the cooperating process can call SetLatch after performing work
that might cause the condition to be satisfied, and the waiting
process can recheck the condition each time. However, if the process
performing the work doesn't have an easy way to identify which
processes might be waiting, this doesn't work, because it can't
identify which latches to set. Condition variables solve that problem
by internally maintaining a list of waiters; a process that may have
caused some waiter's condition to be satisfied must "signal" or
"broadcast" on the condition variable.
Robert Haas and Thomas Munro
