| 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 19:35:39 |
| Message-ID: | 18613.1462390539@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> 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.
Hmm ... wait, I take that back. poll() is required by SUS v2, which has
been our minimum baseline spec for a long time (even my pet dinosaur HPUX
has it). As long as we have an answer for Windows, it's hard to argue
we can't require poll() elsewhere.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-04 19:37:00 | release management team statement on patch reverts |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-05-04 19:35:33 | Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794) |