yOn Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > >>> Has anyone ever thought about adding kqueue (for *BSD) support to
> > >>> Postgres, instead of using select?
> > >>
> > >> Why? poll() is standard. kqueue isn't, AFAIK.
> > > It's supposed be a whole heap faster - there is no polling involved...
> > Supposed by whom? Faster than what? And how would it not poll?
> > The way libpq uses this call, it's either probing for current status
> > (timeout=0) or it's willing to block, possibly indefinitely, until the
> > desired condition arises. It does not sit there in a busy-wait loop.
> > I can't see any reason to think that an OS-specific API would give
> > any marked difference in performance.
> Heh, kqueue is _the_ reason to use FreeBSD.
> I've toyed with the idea of adding this because it is monstrously more
> efficient than select()/poll() in basically every way, shape, and
I would personally be interested in seeing patches ... what would be
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Brown||Date: 2003-03-11 03:44:36|
|Subject: Re: Index / Performance issues|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-03-10 20:07:54|
|Subject: Re: Large difference between elapsed time and run time for queries |
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Sean Chittenden||Date: 2003-03-11 04:11:33|
|Subject: Re: pgsql-server/ /configure /configure.in rc/incl ...|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-03-10 22:28:22|
|Subject: pgsql-server/ ontrib/dbase/dbf2pg.c ontrib/ful ...|