From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | select() for small sleep |
Date: | 2003-12-30 15:37:36 |
Message-ID: | 3FF19BC0.5050904@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
I wrote:
>
> There are a couple of other places where [select()] is used for small
> sleeps (storage/lmgr/s_lock.c and access/transam/xact.c) - those
> should possibly be abstracted out (Windows doesn't behave well there
> anyway, I believe - with 0 FDs I read somewhere it returns immediately
> regardless of the timeout setting).
>
What is the preferred way to handle these 2 cases? We could handle them
with #ifdef'd code inline, or create a new function pg_usleep(), or
possibly handle it with conditional macros inline. If a new function or
macro, where should they go?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-12-30 16:06:07 | Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-12-30 15:28:37 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-30 16:51:41 | Re: select() for small sleep |
Previous Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-12-30 15:05:11 | Re: hello |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-30 16:48:10 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-12-30 15:28:37 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |