| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>,"Jawarilal, Manish" <Manish(dot)Jawarilal(at)dell(dot)com>,"pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench bug / limitation |
| Date: | 2020-06-05 17:18:40 |
| Message-ID: | D973F4AF-8949-42C1-ABF1-E87F7C63E746@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On June 5, 2020 9:45:47 AM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>The idea that I vaguely had was to build our own array of socket FDs
>(bypassing the unnecessary de-duplication logic in FD_SET) and then
>call
>WaitForMultipleObjects() or similar directly. This would of course
>be quite Windows-specific, which'd be annoying, but it seems like
>getting out of using select() on Windows wouldn't be a bad thing.
>Trying to make the same code work with two basically different models
>of what a fd_set is seems like a recipe for pain. This would also get
>us out from under the hack of redefining FD_SETSIZE.
IIRC WaitForMultiple* only supports 64 objects or such. Which might be problematic here.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-06-05 17:32:35 | Re: pgbench bug / limitation |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-06-05 17:04:56 | Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation |