From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
Date: | 2016-03-20 01:43:21 |
Message-ID: | 20160320014321.pc7zqh3nf36lsqat@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-19 15:43:27 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > On March 18, 2016 11:52:08 PM PDT, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >> >Won't the new code needs to ensure that ResetEvent(latchevent)
> > >should
> > >> >get
> > >> >called in case WaitForMultipleObjects() comes out when both
> > >> >pgwin32_signal_event and latchevent are signalled at the same time?
> > >> WaitForMultiple only reports the readiness of on event at a time, no?
> > >>
> > >
> > >I don't think so, please read link [1] with a focus on below paragraph
> > >which states how it reports the readiness or signaled state when
> > >multiple
> > >objects become signaled.
> > >
> > >"When *bWaitAll* is *FALSE*, this function checks the handles in the
> > >array
> > >in order starting with index 0, until one of the objects is signaled.
> > >If
> > >multiple objects become signaled, the function returns the index of the
> > >first handle in the array whose object was signaled."
I think this is just incredibly bad documentation. See
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20150409-00/?p=44273
(Raymond Chen can be considered an authority here imo).
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-20 01:45:36 | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-20 00:44:37 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |