From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | "Rady, Doug" <radydoug(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts |
Date: | 2018-01-26 23:00:48 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1801262348420.17596@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Doug,
Patch applies, compiles, tests ok.
> > [...] Replaced USE_PPOLL with HAVE_PPOLL as having both seems redundant.
>
> I'm okay with that. I'm wondering whether there should be a way to force
> using one or the other when both are available. Not sure.
>
> Added option to force use of select(2) via: -DUSE_SELECT
USE_SELECT could mean something somewhere. Maybe use something more
specific like PGBENCH_USE_SELECT? Having this macro available simplifies
testing.
I'm not sure why you do the following trick, could you explain?
+#undef USE_SELECT
+#define USE_SELECT
In the select implementation you do:
return (socket_set *) pg_malloc0(sizeof(socket_set) * MAXCLIENTS);
but ISTM that socket_set is already an fd_set which represents a set of
clients, so allocating a number of it is needed. The initial
implementation just does "fs_set input_mask", whetever the number of
clients, and it works fine.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-01-26 23:06:21 | Re: Setting BLCKSZ 4kB |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-26 22:58:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Refactoring identifier checks to consistently use strcmp |