Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for largerconnection counts
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for largerconnection counts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.20.1801252339520.26762@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for largerconnection counts ("Rady, Doug" <radydoug@amazon.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for largerconnection counts
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Doug, > This time with the revised patch file: pgbench11-ppoll-v8.patch Patch applies cleanly. Compiles cleanly and runs fine in both ppoll & select cases. I'm okay with having a preferred ppoll implementation because of its improved capability. A few minor additional comments/suggestions: Cpp has an #elif that could be used to manage the ppoll/select alternative. It is already used elsewhere in the file. Or not. I must admit that I'm not fond of the alloc_socket_set trick with MAXCLIENTS, especially without any comment. I'd suggest to just have two distinct functions in their corresponding sections. I would add a comment that free_socket_set code is common to both versions, and maybe consider moving it afterwards. Or maybe just duplicate if in each section for homogeneity. It looks like error_on_socket and ignore_socket should return a boolean instead of an int. Also, maybe simplify the implementation of the later by avoiding the ?: expression. ISTM that the error_on_socket function in the ppoll case deserves some comments, especially on the condition. > [...] Replaced USE_PPOLL with HAVE_PPOLL as having both seems redundant. I'm okay with that. I'm wondering whether there should be a way to force using one or the other when both are available. Not sure. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: