From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: insert performance for win32 |
Date: | 2005-11-03 21:15:31 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E7F5@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> > > I'd like to use the win32 provided recv(), send()
> functions instead
> > > of redirect them to pgwin32_recv()/pgwin32_send(), just
> like libpq
> > > does. If we do this, we will lose some functionalities,
> but I'd like
> > > to see the performance difference first. -- do you think
> that will
> > > be any difference?
> >
> > Doesn't work, really. It will no longer be possible to send
> a signal
> > to an idle backend. The idle backend will be blocking on recv(),
> > that's how it works. So unless we can get around that
> somehow, it's a
> > non-starter I think.
>
> Yeah, agreed. An alternative is set tiemout like 100 ms or
> so. When timeout happens, check the signals. But I guess you
> will be strongly against it.
Not on principle, but I don't think it'll give us enough gain for the
cost. But if it does, I'm certainly not against it.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-11-03 21:46:52 | Re: insert performance for win32 |
Previous Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-11-03 21:06:32 | Re: insert performance for win32 |