From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: select() for small sleep |
Date: | 2003-12-30 16:51:41 |
Message-ID: | 23636.1072803101@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I wrote:
>> There are a couple of other places where [select()] is used for small
>> sleeps (storage/lmgr/s_lock.c and access/transam/xact.c) -
> What is the preferred way to handle these 2 cases? We could handle them
> with #ifdef'd code inline, or create a new function pg_usleep(), or
> possibly handle it with conditional macros inline. If a new function or
> macro, where should they go?
I'd go with a new function. There is no reason to try to "optimize"
this code by putting it inline; if you're trying to delay, another few
nanoseconds to enter a subroutine doesn't matter.
As for where, maybe make a new file in src/port/. That would make it
relatively easy to use the same function in client-side code if we
needed to.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-12-30 16:55:43 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-30 16:48:10 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-30 18:58:53 | pg_usleep |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-12-30 15:37:36 | select() for small sleep |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-12-30 16:55:43 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-30 16:48:10 | Re: [PATCHES] update i386 spinlock for hyperthreading |