From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
Date: | 2005-10-21 18:47:35 |
Message-ID: | 435937C7.8090801@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
>
>
>>... so definitely worth fixing for 8.1 if we can convince ourselves
>>it's correct.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Despite the performance, there is one thing I am not exactly sure. Shall we
>add "volatile" quanlifier to at least pg_signal_queue? The dangerous place
>is PGSemaphoreLock(). If the compiler cache this value somehow, then we are
>in trouble, but the original way (check event directly) does not have this
>problem.
>
>
>
>
The fact this question is asked worries me a bit.
Also, I have a small style question - why use a nested if instead of
just saying
if (UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() && WaitForSingleObjectEx(pgwin32_signal_event,0,TRUE) == WAIT_OBJECT_0)
?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-10-21 19:01:35 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-21 18:42:19 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak |