| From: | "korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 |
| Date: | 2006-07-29 19:35:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1154201708.27274.17.camel@sakai.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> heh. I was just doing it the way Tom suggested - see attached. With a
> little more trouble we could also keep track if the listened for events
> and sometimes save ourselves a second call to WSAEventSelect, but I'm
> not sure it's worth it.
It all depends on the overhead of WSAEventSelect(). I'm sure your version would run faster, but I just don't know if "slower" would be measurable.
BTW: I would suggest changing your comment to:
/*
* make sure we don't multiplex this kernel event object with a
different socket
* from a previous call
*/
Thanks for tackling this problem too.
-- Korry
----
Korry Douglas korryd(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2006-07-29 19:36:39 | Re: Do we need multiple forms of the SQL2003 statistics |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-29 19:07:03 | Re: Do we need multiple forms of the SQL2003 statistics |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-07-29 20:15:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Possible explanation for Win32 stats regression |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-29 17:45:47 | Re: CREATE INDEX ... ONLINE |