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.
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 |