Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-09-08 Thread Thomas Munro
I committed this for 17. It would be good to come up with something fundamentally better than this, to get rid of that 64 event limit nonsense, but I don't see it happening in the 17 cycle, and prefer the semantics with this commit in the meantime.

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-06-09 Thread Thomas Munro
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:53 PM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) wrote: > On Sat, April 1, 2023 at 11:00 AM Thomas Munro wrote: > I tried to test this patch on Windows. And I did cover the new code path > below: > ``` > + /* We have another event to decode. */ > + cur_event = &set-

RE: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-05-18 Thread Wei Wang (Fujitsu)
On Sat, April 1, 2023 at 11:00 AM Thomas Munro wrote: > Hi, Thanks for your patch. I tried to test this patch on Windows. And I did cover the new code path below: ``` + /* We have another event to decode. */ + cur_event = &set->events[next_pos + (rc - WAIT_OBJECT_0)];

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-05-16 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2023-05-17 08:41:24 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > Yeah. No one seems to think this is worth worrying about (please > speak up if you do). +1 - we have much bigger fish to fry IMO. Greetings, Andres Freund

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-05-16 Thread Jonathan S. Katz
On 5/16/23 4:41 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 2:57 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: Given this has sat for a bit, I wanted to see if any of your thinking has changed on whether this should be fixed for v16 or v17. I have personally not formed an opinion yet, but per the current di

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-05-16 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 2:57 AM Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On 3/31/23 11:00 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > >>> I mention this now because I'm not sure whether to consider this an > >>> 'open item' for 16, or merely an enhancement for 17. I guess the > >>> former, because someone might call that a new d

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-05-16 Thread Jonathan S. Katz
On 3/31/23 11:00 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: I mention this now because I'm not sure whether to consider this an 'open item' for 16, or merely an enhancement for 17. I guess the former, because someone might call that a new denial of service vector. On the other hand, if you fill up the listen que

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-03-31 Thread Thomas Munro
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 2:35 PM Andres Freund wrote: > I wonder if we ought to bite the bullet and replace the use of > WaitForMultipleObjects() with RegisterWaitForSingleObject() and then use > GetQueuedCompletionStatus() to wait. The fairness issue here is a motivation, > but the bigger one is th

Re: WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-03-31 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2023-04-01 13:42:21 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > Commit 7389aad6 started using WaitEventSetWait() to wait for incoming > connections. Before that, we used select(), for which we have our own > implementation for Windows. > > While hacking on patches to rip a bunch of unused Win32 socket w

WL_SOCKET_ACCEPT fairness on Windows

2023-03-31 Thread Thomas Munro
Hi, Commit 7389aad6 started using WaitEventSetWait() to wait for incoming connections. Before that, we used select(), for which we have our own implementation for Windows. While hacking on patches to rip a bunch of unused Win32 socket wrapper code out, I twigged that the old pgwin32_select() cod