Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
Date
Msg-id 22224.1130100074@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance  ("Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> But. in theory, we can get a false positive from
> UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE(), right?

We could have gotten a false positive from the old coding, too.
The event was certainly not any more tightly tied to the presence
of an unserviced signal flag than UNBLOCKED_SIGNAL_QUEUE, and arguably
less so.

I think this concern is irrelevant anyway.  Returning EINTR from
select() is OK even if no signal was actually serviced, so long as
it doesn't recur indefinitely.  EINTR just means "I didn't do the
select(), try again".
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Magnus Hagander"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance