Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak
Date: 2005-10-21 20:42:42
Message-ID: 25464.1129927362@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:
> Was that with the volatile attribute or not?

I doubt volatile would make any visible performance difference --- the
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls that are performance-critical are in places
where the compiler couldn't try to optimize away the fetches anyway.
The volatile qualifier is just needed to cover our rears in case a
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is used in some fairly small loop with no external
function calls.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-10-21 20:57:22 Re: Seeing context switch storm with 10/13 snapshot of
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2005-10-21 20:41:39 Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak