Re: [HACKERS] Question on win32 semaphore simulation

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Peter Brant wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Based on that, backpatching the new win32_sema.c implementation is
> probably more defensible than applying the proposed smaller patch
> anyway; it's survived more testing.
>
> My inclination is to do nothing to the back branches, but if we get more
> field reports of trouble with them, maybe that's what to do. (I'd be
> happier if 8.2 gets through beta first, as I'm still a bit worried about
> the do-all-Windows-versions-act-the-same bit.)

Agreed.

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

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