> > Sorry, I don't follow you here - what do you mean to do? Remove the
> > event completely so we can't wait on it?
> >
>
> 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.

I doubt there will be much performance difference, as you hav eto hit
the kernel anyway (in the recv/send call). But that part is just a guess
:-)


//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> > > Sorry, I don't follow you here - what do you mean to do? Remove the
> > > event completely so we can't wait on it?
> > >
> >
> > 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.

>
> I doubt there will be much performance difference, as you hav eto hit
> the kernel anyway (in the recv/send call). But that part is just a guess
> :-)

I know what you mean ... I will take a look -- if the patch (not
including fix signaling problem), if doesn't change much, I will give it a
try.

Regards,
Qingqing

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

""Magnus Hagander"" <mha@sollentuna.net> wrote
>>
>> 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?
>
> I doubt there will be much performance difference, as you hav eto hit
> the kernel anyway (in the recv/send call). But that part is just a guess
> :-)
>

On a separate line -- I verified Magnus's doubt -- revert pgwin32_recv() to
recv() does not improve performance visiblly.

Regards,
Qingqing