On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > On March 21, 2016 5:12:38 AM GMT+01:00, Amit Kapila < > amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >The article pointed by you justifies that the way ResetEvent is done by > >patch is correct. I am not sure, but you can weigh, if there is a need > >of > >comment so that if we want enhance this part of code (or want to write > >something similar) in future, we don't need to rediscover this fact. > > I've added a reference in a comment. > > Did you have a chance of running the patched versions on windows? > > I am planning to do it in next few hours. > I plan to push this sometime today, so I can get on to some performance > patches I was planning to look into committing. > > have we done testing to ensure that it actually mitigate the impact of performance degradation due to commit ac1d794. I wanted to do that, but unfortunately the hight-end m/c on which this problem is reproducible is down. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
