Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
- Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
- Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:45:04 -0400
- Message-id: <22261(dot)1130100304(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes: > Are we asserting that > UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE() != 0 > then > WaitForSingleObjectEx(0)==WAIT_OBJECT_0 No. > If so, we can put this assertion in. Only if you want it to crash every so often. The "race condition" is that a signal delivered right about the time the check is made may be serviced before the event is set, meaning that after the dust settles the event will still be set when there's nothing to do. This was true before, too, and will have no impact worse than causing an extra entry to dispatch_signals later on. regards, tom lane
- References:
- Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- From: Magnus Hagander
- Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- From: Qingqing Zhou
- Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
- Indexes: