From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |
Date: | 2003-03-06 03:47:51 |
Message-ID: | 12228.1046922471@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-performance |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>>> Has anyone ever thought about adding kqueue (for *BSD) support to
>>> Postgres, instead of using select?
>>
>> Why? poll() is standard. kqueue isn't, AFAIK.
> It's supposed be a whole heap faster - there is no polling involved...
Supposed by whom? Faster than what? And how would it not poll?
The way libpq uses this call, it's either probing for current status
(timeout=0) or it's willing to block, possibly indefinitely, until the
desired condition arises. It does not sit there in a busy-wait loop.
I can't see any reason to think that an OS-specific API would give
any marked difference in performance.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-06 04:19:16 | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-03-06 03:42:42 | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-06 04:19:16 | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-03-06 03:42:42 | Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ... |