| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
| Date: | 2016-01-14 17:14:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20160114171421.GK10941@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-14 12:07:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Do we want to provide a backward compatible API for all this? I'm fine
> > either way.
>
> How would that work?
I'm thinking of something like;
int WaitOnLatchSet(LatchEventSet *set, int wakeEvents, long timeout);
int
WaitLatchOrSocket(volatile Latch *latch, int wakeEvents, pgsocket sock,long timeout)
{
LatchEventSet set;
LatchEventSetInit(&set, latch);
if (sock != PGINVALID_SOCKET)
LatchEventSetAddSock(&set, sock);
return WaitOnLatchSet(set, wakeEvents, timeout);
}
I think we'll need to continue having wakeEvents and timeout parameters
for WaitOnLatchSet, we quite frequently want to wait socket
readability/writability, not wait on the socket, or have/not have
timeouts.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-01-14 17:22:16 | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-01-14 17:13:35 | Re: SET syntax in INSERT |