Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)
Date: 2016-05-04 19:31:35
Message-ID: 18424.1462390295@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Given that poll() has been introduced in SRV3 - which IIRC was below our
> usual baseline - and windows is not an issue for latch, I think it'd
> be ok to rely on it.

I think it's entirely reasonable to say that "if you want high performance
you should have poll(3)". Failing to build without it would be a harder
sell, probably.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2016-05-04 19:35:33 Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-05-04 19:24:07 Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)