| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
| Date: | 2005-10-22 18:39:04 |
| Message-ID: | 435A8748.8060702@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>After further thought it seems like the right thing to do is to redesign
>port/win32/timer.c so that it sets up a separate thread whose
>responsibility is to wait for timeouts and deliver a SIGALRM signal back
>to the main thread when they happen. It's probably a bit late to
>consider doing this for 8.1 :-(
>
>
>
>
The hard part looks to be cancelling/changing the timer, which means
that we can't just create a set and forget listener thread for a given
timeout. Otherwise that seems to me the straightforward approach.
But maybe one of the Windows wizards has a better idea.
I doubt the changes would be very invasive - with luck just confined to
timer.c.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-22 18:52:39 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-22 18:05:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |