| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: kqueue |
| Date: | 2016-09-13 13:33:55 |
| Message-ID: | 27393.1473773635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to
> improve performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue()
> function. Most notably, FreeBSD?
OS X also has this, so it might be worth trying on a multi-CPU Mac.
> If there's no measurable difference in performance, between kqueue() and
> poll(), I think we should forget about this.
I agree that we shouldn't add this unless it's demonstrably a win.
No opinion on whether your test is adequate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-13 14:02:50 | Re: 9.6 TAP tests and extensions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-13 13:28:46 | Re: _hash_alloc_buckets() safety |