Horton

Re: kqueue

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Date: 2016-09-13T15:36:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 13 September 2016 at 08:08, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:

> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve
> performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most
> notably, FreeBSD?

I'm getting a little fried from "self-documenting" patches, from
multiple sources.

I think we should make it a firm requirement to explain what a patch
is actually about, with extra points for including with it a test that
allows us to validate that. We don't have enough committer time to
waste on such things.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Add kqueue(2) support to the WaitEventSet API.

  2. Add WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH pseudo-event.

  3. Be conservative about alignment requirements of struct epoll_event.

  4. Make idle backends exit if the postmaster dies.