Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch
От | Andrew Chernow |
---|---|
Тема | Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47FFB7DE.6070208@esilo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Chernow <ac@esilo.com> writes: >> The attached patch replaces the win32 mutex calls with critical section >> calls. The change will not affect the behavior of the windows >> pthread_xxx functions. > > Why have you defined the lock/unlock functions as willing to fall > through silently if handed a null pointer? I think a crash in > such a case is what we *want*. Silently not locking is surely > not very safe. > > regards, tom lane > Yeah, both naughty. These functions were not implemented to spec. These pthread functions are all supposed to return an int (which is an errno value). I was trying not to change the existing prototypes ... should I? I can return EINVAL if something is NULL and ENOMEM if the malloc fails ... or just dump core. If you like the return value idea, I can make all occurances of pthread_xxx check the return value. -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: