| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: kqueue |
| Date: | 2016-09-13 15:20:25 |
| Message-ID: | ca806d7b-325c-d012-b8aa-0387dff97b56@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/13/2016 04:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
>> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to
>> improve performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue()
>> function. Most notably, FreeBSD?
>
> OS X also has this, so it might be worth trying on a multi-CPU Mac.
>
>> If there's no measurable difference in performance, between kqueue() and
>> poll(), I think we should forget about this.
>
> I agree that we shouldn't add this unless it's demonstrably a win.
> No opinion on whether your test is adequate.
I'm marking this as "Returned with Feedback", waiting for someone to
post test results that show a positive performance benefit from this.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-09-13 15:32:54 | Re: kqueue |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-13 15:20:00 | Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution |