From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch |
Date: | 2008-04-11 19:11:26 |
Message-ID: | 47FFB7DE.6070208@esilo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> writes:
>> The attached patch replaces the win32 mutex calls with critical section
>> calls. The change will not affect the behavior of the windows
>> pthread_xxx functions.
>
> Why have you defined the lock/unlock functions as willing to fall
> through silently if handed a null pointer? I think a crash in
> such a case is what we *want*. Silently not locking is surely
> not very safe.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Yeah, both naughty.
These functions were not implemented to spec. These pthread functions
are all supposed to return an int (which is an errno value). I was
trying not to change the existing prototypes ... should I? I can return
EINVAL if something is NULL and ENOMEM if the malloc fails ... or just
dump core.
If you like the return value idea, I can make all occurances of
pthread_xxx check the return value.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-04-11 19:24:29 | Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-11 19:00:08 | Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch |