| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Brant <Peter(dot)Brant(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |
| Date: | 2006-05-12 18:07:38 |
| Message-ID: | 200605121807.k4CI7cM07674@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Brant wrote:
> Ah, sorry for the late response (and for any confusion), but the only
> thing I tested was Qingqing's rewritten semaphore implementation. I
> didn't test the proposed bug fixes to the existing semaphore
> implementation.
Oh, OK. The email mentioned the semaphore patch without specifying
which one, so I assume it was the shorter one.
> We've never been able reproduce (or even trigger) the original "sem_ctl
> failed" error in a testing environment so it would be hard to say if the
> changes to win32/sema.c have an impact on it or not. On the other hand,
> win32_sema.c seems to solve the pgbench lockups reported earlier by Jim
> N. and it successfully completes a reasonably brutal stress test with
> real world data and real world queries (which at least is a good
> indication that it basically works).
OK, let's consider the item closed. We didn't backpatch the new
win32_sema.c file to 8.1.X or 8.0.X, so let'see if we get more reports.
Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-12 18:19:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |
| Previous Message | Peter Brant | 2006-05-12 18:00:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation |