Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2616.1130004322@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, you tried to "scale" into a domain where the performance is going >> to be disk-I/O-limited, so I'm not sure it proves anything. > Good point. I took a 5% random extract from the lineitems table and saw > the expected improvement. Sounds better. Certainly there are cases where CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS isn't going to be a meaningful drag on performance, but there are others where it will be. BTW, looking at the code some more, I am thinking that checking pgwin32_signal_event should be completely unnecessary in pgwin32_check_queued_signals; that is, if UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() is nonzero we might as well just enter pgwin32_dispatch_queued_signals unconditionally. The only usefulness of calling WaitForSingleObjectEx is to allow any pending APCs to be dispatched. Are there any other APCs queued against the main thread besides the timer.c one? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: