From: | "korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Possible explanation for Win32 stats regression test |
Date: | 2006-07-29 12:18:33 |
Message-ID: | 1154175513.7099.51.camel@sakai.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Is anyone working on this?
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > korry <korry(at)appx(dot)com> writes:
> > > The problem is that, each time you go through
> > > pgwin32_waitforsinglesocket(), you tie the *same* kernel object
> > > (waitevent is static) to each socket.
> >
> > > The fix is pretty simple - just call WSAEventSelect( s, waitevent, 0 )
> > > after WaitForMultipleObjectsEx() returns. That disassociates the socket
> > > from the Event (it will get re-associated the next time
> > > pgwin32_waitforsingleselect() is called.
> >
> > Hmm. Presumably we don't do this a whole lot (use multiple sockets) or
> > we'd have noticed before. Perhaps better would be to keep an additional
> > static variable saying which socket the event is currently associated
> > to, and only issue the extra WSAEventSelect calls if we need to change
> > it. Or is WSAEventSelect fast enough that it doesn't matter?
> >
Here's a simple patch that fixes the problem (I haven't explored the
performance of this patch compared to Tom's suggestion).
-- Korry
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
socket.patch | text/x-patch | 1.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-29 13:31:31 | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
Previous Message | Tzahi Fadida | 2006-07-29 10:37:44 | Re: Formulating an sql query with CTID |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-07-29 14:21:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Possible explanation for Win32 stats regression |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2006-07-29 06:50:05 | Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features? |