From: | "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Fabien COELHO' <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: seems like a bug in pgbench -R |
Date: | 2019-07-25 00:01:57 |
Message-ID: | 0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A513274C1@g01jpexmbkw24 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, July 24, 2019 at 7:02 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > but I have one question. Is it better adding any check like if(maxsock
> > != -1) before the select?
> >
> > else /* no explicit delay, select without timeout */
> > {
> > nsocks = select(maxsock + 1, &input_mask, NULL, NULL, NULL); }
>
> I think that it is not necessary because this case cannot happen: If some
> clients are still running (remains > 0), they are either sleeping, in
> which case there would be a timeout, or they are waiting for something
> from the server, otherwise the script could be advanced further so there
> would be something else to do for the thread.
Ah, I understand.
> We could check this by adding "Assert(maxsock != -1);" before this select,
> but I would not do that for a released version.
Yeah I also imagined that we can use Assert, but ah, it's released version.
I got it. Thanks for telling that.
So I'll mark this ready for committer.
--
Yoshikazu Imai
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-25 00:02:14 | Re: Compile from source using latest Microsoft Windows SDK |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-24 23:53:02 | Re: [PATCH] minor bugfix for pg_basebackup (9.6 ~ ) |