Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Brant <Peter(dot)Brant(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Date: 2006-05-12 18:07:38
Message-ID: 200605121807.k4CI7cM07674@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Peter Brant wrote:
> Ah, sorry for the late response (and for any confusion), but the only
> thing I tested was Qingqing's rewritten semaphore implementation. I
> didn't test the proposed bug fixes to the existing semaphore
> implementation.

Oh, OK. The email mentioned the semaphore patch without specifying
which one, so I assume it was the shorter one.

> We've never been able reproduce (or even trigger) the original "sem_ctl
> failed" error in a testing environment so it would be hard to say if the
> changes to win32/sema.c have an impact on it or not. On the other hand,
> win32_sema.c seems to solve the pgbench lockups reported earlier by Jim
> N. and it successfully completes a reasonably brutal stress test with
> real world data and real world queries (which at least is a good
> indication that it basically works).

OK, let's consider the item closed. We didn't backpatch the new
win32_sema.c file to 8.1.X or 8.0.X, so let'see if we get more reports.

Thanks.

--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-12 18:19:21 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation
Previous Message Peter Brant 2006-05-12 18:00:29 Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation