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

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: "Rady, Doug" <radydoug(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: "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: 2018-01-25 22:46:24
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1801252339520.26762@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hello Doug,

> This time with the revised patch file: pgbench11-ppoll-v8.patch

Patch applies cleanly. Compiles cleanly and runs fine in both ppoll &
select cases.

I'm okay with having a preferred ppoll implementation because of its improved
capability.

A few minor additional comments/suggestions:

Cpp has an #elif that could be used to manage the ppoll/select alternative.
It is already used elsewhere in the file. Or not.

I must admit that I'm not fond of the alloc_socket_set trick with MAXCLIENTS,
especially without any comment. I'd suggest to just have two distinct functions
in their corresponding sections.

I would add a comment that free_socket_set code is common to both
versions, and maybe consider moving it afterwards. Or maybe just duplicate
if in each section for homogeneity.

It looks like error_on_socket and ignore_socket should return a boolean instead
of an int. Also, maybe simplify the implementation of the later by avoiding
the ?: expression.

ISTM that the error_on_socket function in the ppoll case deserves some
comments, especially on the condition.

> [...] Replaced USE_PPOLL with HAVE_PPOLL as having both seems redundant.

I'm okay with that. I'm wondering whether there should be a way to force
using one or the other when both are available. Not sure.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2018-01-25 23:05:39 Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-01-25 22:28:57 Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Add --no-comments to skip COMMENTs with pg_dump