Re: Performance patch for Win32

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Mark Dilger <markdilger(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance patch for Win32
Date: 2013-01-24 23:21:34
Message-ID: 20130124232134.GJ21914@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:37:37PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 03:54:59PM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> > I was imagining that this would be a trap for linux developers
> > who saw nothing wrong with their code until it made it to the
> > build/test farm. That's pretty far down the development
> > process. Of course, it is also a trap in the other direction, for
> > Windows developers who use the pattern but do not include
> > anything equivalent for the non-Windows execution path.
> >
> > On the whole, however, your argument in favor of tighter
> > patterns might be more convincing than my argument in favor
> > of catching bugs sooner.
> >
> > I will start implementing your suggestion for patch v2.
>
> Any progress on this?

I have added this to the TODO list:

Reduce file statistics overhead on directory reads

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1338325561.82125.YahooMailNeo@web39304.mail.mud.yahoo.com

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Browne 2013-01-24 23:25:47 Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2013-01-24 23:17:18 Re: Parallel query execution