Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 435937C7.8090801@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak ("Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Qingqing Zhou wrote: >"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote > > >>... so definitely worth fixing for 8.1 if we can convince ourselves >>it's correct. >> >> >> > >Despite the performance, there is one thing I am not exactly sure. Shall we >add "volatile" quanlifier to at least pg_signal_queue? The dangerous place >is PGSemaphoreLock(). If the compiler cache this value somehow, then we are >in trouble, but the original way (check event directly) does not have this >problem. > > > > The fact this question is asked worries me a bit. Also, I have a small style question - why use a nested if instead of just saying if (UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() && WaitForSingleObjectEx(pgwin32_signal_event,0,TRUE) == WAIT_OBJECT_0) ? cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: