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 9145.1130211554@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance  (Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
List pgsql-hackers
Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> I tried to persuade myself that removing all WaitForSingleObjectEx() is
> safe ... the thing is we will false alarm EINTR as Magnus said (details to
> repeat it are list below in case).

Just to repeat myself: there were false alarms before.  The interleaving
you describe could equally well happen if a new signal is sent just
after the old code executes WaitForSingleObjectEx and sees that a
previous signal is waiting for it.  Both old and new signals can be
cleared by the recipient before the second signal sender gets as far as
setting the event.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Qingqing Zhou
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 'a' == 'a '