Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1+pZHFed4w7aU1sT-H9SN-VfxbP6QETA0KsbaEGb9V30g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
>
> Attached is a significantly revised version of the earlier series. Most
> importantly I have:
> * Unified the window/unix latch implementation into one file (0004)
>
>
> Attached is a significantly revised version of the earlier series. Most
> importantly I have:
> * Unified the window/unix latch implementation into one file (0004)
>
After applying patch 0004* on HEAD, using command patch -p1 < <path_of_patch>, I am getting build failure:
I think it could not rename port/unix_latch.c => storage/ipc/latch.c. I have tried with git apply, but no success. Am I doing something wrong?
One minor suggestion about patch:
+#ifndef WIN32
void
latch_sigusr1_handler(void)
{
if (waiting)
sendSelfPipeByte();
}
+#endif /* !WIN32 */
/* Send one byte to the self-pipe, to wake up WaitLatch */
+#ifndef WIN32
static void
sendSelfPipeByte(void)
Instead of individually defining these functions under #ifndef WIN32, isn't it better to combine them all as they are at end of file.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: