| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
| Date: | 2005-10-23 20:41:14 |
| Message-ID: | 22224.1130100074@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> But. in theory, we can get a false positive from
> UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE(), right?
We could have gotten a false positive from the old coding, too.
The event was certainly not any more tightly tied to the presence
of an unserviced signal flag than UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE, and arguably
less so.
I think this concern is irrelevant anyway. Returning EINTR from
select() is OK even if no signal was actually serviced, so long as
it doesn't recur indefinitely. EINTR just means "I didn't do the
select(), try again".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-23 20:45:04 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-10-23 20:34:10 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |