Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Rady, Doug" <radydoug(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts
Date: 2018-08-09 21:46:10
Message-ID: 98fd9aa2-f5f0-d872-902f-c217cae1eed3@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/09/2018 12:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 07/03/2018 07:52 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/17/2018 01:23 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Rady, Doug <radydoug(at)amazon(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> pgbench11-ppoll-v12.patch
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> FYI this patch is trying and failing to use ppoll() on Windows:
>>>
>>> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.30
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's still failing -  see
>> <https://ci.appveyor.com/project/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/build/1.0.4098>
>>
>> I'm setting this back to "Waiting on Author" until that's fixed.
>>
>
>
> The author hasn't replied, but the attached seems to have cured the
> bitrot so that it at least applies. Let's see what the cfbot makes of
> it and then possibly fix any Windows issues.
>
>
>

And there's still a Windows problem which I think is cured in the
attached patch

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
pgbench-ppoll-v14.patch text/x-patch 10.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2018-08-09 22:00:25 Commitfest 2018-07 WOA items
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2018-08-09 21:35:56 Re: Typo in doc or wrong EXCLUDE implementation