| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
| Date: | 2010-08-31 10:40:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim1a=g2q+7n001o7uTpMwpyK-r-KtKH1wkCkFeS@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Here's a 2nd version of the "latch" patch. Now with a Windows
> implementation. Comments welcome.
Seems good.
Two minor comments:
> rc = WaitForSingleObject(latch->event, timeout / 1000);
> if (rc == WAIT_FAILED)
> {
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode_for_socket_access(),
> errmsg("WaitForSingleObject() failed: error code %d", (int) GetLastError())));
> }
> if (rc == WAIT_TIMEOUT)
> break; /* timeout exceeded */
We should also check "rc == WAIT_OBJECT_0"?
> static volatile HANDLE waitingEvent = false;
s/false/NULL?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-08-31 11:04:19 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-08-31 10:21:25 | Re: huia and moa versus old PG branches |