Horton

Re: kqueue

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Date: 2016-09-13T15:20:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 09/13/2016 04:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
>> 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?
>
> OS X also has this, so it might be worth trying on a multi-CPU Mac.
>
>> If there's no measurable difference in performance, between kqueue() and
>> poll(), I think we should forget about this.
>
> I agree that we shouldn't add this unless it's demonstrably a win.
> No opinion on whether your test is adequate.

I'm marking this as "Returned with Feedback", waiting for someone to 
post test results that show a positive performance benefit from this.

- Heikki

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.