Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)
Date
Msg-id 18613.1462390539@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Given that poll() has been introduced in SRV3 - which IIRC was below our
>> usual baseline - and windows is not an issue for latch, I think it'd
>> be ok to rely on it.

> I think it's entirely reasonable to say that "if you want high performance
> you should have poll(3)".  Failing to build without it would be a harder
> sell, probably.

Hmm ... wait, I take that back.  poll() is required by SUS v2, which has
been our minimum baseline spec for a long time (even my pet dinosaur HPUX
has it).  As long as we have an answer for Windows, it's hard to argue
we can't require poll() elsewhere.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: modifying WaitEventSets (was: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: release management team statement on patch reverts