Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

On March 18, 2016 11:52:08 PM PDT, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On March 18, 2016 11:32:53 PM PDT, Amit Kapila
><amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> >On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2016-03-18 20:14:07 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have done some
>> >> > tests on Windows with 0003 patch which includes running the
>> >regressions
>> >> > (vcregress check) and it passes.  Will look into it tomorrow
>once
>> >again
>> >and
>> >> > share if I find anything wrong with it, but feel to proceed if
>you
>> >want.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the testing thus far! Let's see what the buildfarm has
>to
>> >> say.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Won't the new code needs to ensure that ResetEvent(latchevent)
>should
>> >get
>> >called in case WaitForMultipleObjects() comes out when both
>> >pgwin32_signal_event and latchevent are signalled at the same time?
>>
>> WaitForMultiple only reports the readiness of on event at a time, no?
>>
>
>I don't think so, please read link [1] with a focus on below paragraph
>which states how it reports the readiness or signaled state when
>multiple
>objects become signaled.
>
>"When *bWaitAll* is *FALSE*, this function checks the handles in the
>array
>in order starting with index 0, until one of the objects is signaled.
>If
>multiple objects become signaled, the function returns the index of the
>first handle in the array whose object was signaled."

I think that's OK. We'll just get the next event the next time we call waitfor*. It's also not different to the way the
routineis currently handling normal socket and postmaster events, no?  It's be absurdly broken if it handled edge
triggeredenemy's like FD_CLOSE in a way you can't discover.
 

Andres
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.