| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers-win32" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Win32 signal code - first try |
| Date: | 2004-01-08 21:27:58 |
| Message-ID: | 303E00EBDD07B943924382E153890E5434AA41@cuthbert.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> 3. you are absolutely certain that
> __pg_poll_signals() +
> EnterCriticalSection +
> memset +
> if... +
> LeaveCriticalSection +
> if...
>
> is more efficient than a single call to WaitForSingleObjectEx() with 0
> timeout?
Some crude tests show that my 1 GHz P3 can execute about 1.2 million
calls to WaitForSingleObjectEx() in 1 second. However, this is about
3.5 times slower than a quick mock up of your polling function I put
together. Either approach, though, is pretty darn quick :). Unlike
SleepEx(), WFSO does not stall the thread.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-01-08 21:56:38 | Re: Win32 signal code - first try |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-01-08 21:08:19 | Re: Win32 signal code - first try |