On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This basically means that if the latch is set, we don't wait at all
>> and drop the ball. I am wondering: isn't that a problem even if
>> WL_LATCH_SET is *not* set? If I read this code correctly, even if
>> caller has not set WL_LATCH_SET and the latch is set, then the wait
>> will stop.
>
> Nah. I misread the code. set->latch is not NULL only if WL_LATCH_SET is enabled.
OK, I think that I have spotted an issue after additional read of the
code. When a WSA event is used for read/write activity on a socket,
the same WSA event gets reused again and again. That's fine for
performance reasons, but what I think is not fine is the fact that
this WSA event is *not* reset even once in-between when calling
WaitEventAdjustWin32() to adjust an event HANDLE to wait for, and the
FeBeWaitEvent is used a lot. That's one inconsistency with the old
code that always closed the WSA event after using it, unconditionally.
Now that we cache it I think that we had better put it in a clean
state every time we want to use it again.
With the pointer miscalculation I pointed out upthread it gives the
patch attached.
Ashutosh, could you try it and see if it improves things?
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers