Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Are people satisfied that the Windows part of the patch is okay?
>
> I went ahead and applied this patch after some trivial stylistic fixes.
> The buildfarm will soon tell us if the WIN32 part of the patch compiles,
> but not whether it works --- would someone double-
I wrote:
> Are people satisfied that the Windows part of the patch is okay?
I went ahead and applied this patch after some trivial stylistic fixes.
The buildfarm will soon tell us if the WIN32 part of the patch compiles,
but not whether it works --- would someone double-check the functioning
of th
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sys/time.h and unistd.h are #included just a few lines after that, but
> within a #ifndef WIN32 block. I don't think the patch added any
> codepaths where we'd need those header files on Windows, so I presume
> that was just an oversight and those
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
***
*** 29,36
--- 29,40
#include "postgres_fe.h"
#include "libpq-fe.h"
+ #include "pqsignal.h"
#include
+ #include
+ #include
+ #include
#ifdef WIN32
#undef FD_SETSIZE
sys/time.h and unistd.h are #included just a few lines
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>> Here is a revised version of the pgbench duration patch.
>
> Looking at the Win32 timer implementation, it's a bit different from the
> one we have in src/backend/port/win32/timer.c. The one in timer.c uses a
> separate thread and WaitForSingl
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Here is a revised version of the pgbench duration patch.
Looking at the Win32 timer implementation, it's a bit different from the
one we have in src/backend/port/win32/timer.c. The one in timer.c uses a
separate thread and WaitForSingleObjectEx() to wait, while your
i
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:59 PM, ITAGAKI Takahiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a revised version of the pgbench duration patch.
> I merged some comments from Brendan and gnari.
>
The changes look good. I tried out the new v3 patch and didn't
encounter any problems.
One last minor quibble
Here is a revised version of the pgbench duration patch.
I merged some comments from Brendan and gnari.
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Wouldn't this be better written as:
> >> if ((duration > 0 && timer_exceeded) || st->cnt >= nxacts)
> >
> > sorry, but these do not lok as the s
Hello again,
I received the following email from a helpful fellow off-list,
pointing out an error in my review:
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Ragnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On fös, 2008-09-05 at 15:07 +1000, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>> Wouldn't this be better written as:
>>
>>
"Brendan Jurd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josh assigned your patch to me for an initial review. Here's what I
> have so far.
Thank your for reviewing!
> The -T option seems to work as advertised, and I wasn't able to detect
> any performance degradation (or a significant variation of any kin
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM, ITAGAKI Takahiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I rewrote the patch to use SIGALRM instead of gettimeofday.
>
Hi Itagaki-san,
Josh assigned your patch to me for an initial review. Here's what I
have so far.
The patch applies cleanly on the latest git HEAD, an
11 matches
Mail list logo
