Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 13:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
David Fetter wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm inclined to treat this as an outright bug, not just a minor
performance issue, because it implies that a sufficiently l
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 13:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I'm inclined to treat this as an outright bug, not just a minor
> > > performance issue, because it implies that a sufficiently long psql
> > > script wo
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] insert performance for win32
>
> > >> AFAICS it is appropriate to move the sigsetjmp and
> > >> setup_cancel_handler calls in front of the per-line loop inside
> > >> MainLoop --- can anyone see a reason not to?
> >
> >
> >> AFAICS it is appropriate to move the sigsetjmp and
> >> setup_cancel_handler calls in front of the per-line loop inside
> >> MainLoop --- can anyone see a reason not to?
>
> > hm. mainloop is re-entrant, right? That means each \i
> would reset the
> > handler...what is downside to keepin
> > I'm inclined to treat this as an outright bug, not just a minor
> certainly...
>
> > performance issue, because it implies that a sufficiently long psql
> > script would probably crash a Windows machine.
>
> actually, it's worse than that, it's more of a dos on the
> whole system, as window
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Nailed it.
> >
> > > problem is in mainloop.c -> setup_cancel_handler. Apparently you
> > > can have multiple handlers and windows keeps track of them all,
> > >
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm inclined to treat this as an outright bug, not just a minor
>> performance issue, because it implies that a sufficiently long psql
>> script would probably crash a Windows machine.
> Ouch.
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> AFAICS it is appropriate to move the sigsetjmp and
>> setup_cancel_handler
>> calls in front of the per-line loop inside MainLoop --- can anyone see
>> a reason not to?
> hm. mainloop is re-entrant, right? That means each \i would reset the
> handle
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nailed it.
>
> > problem is in mainloop.c -> setup_cancel_handler. Apparently you can
> > have multiple handlers and windows keeps track of them all, even if they
> > do the same thing. Keeping track of so many system handles wou
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nailed it.
>
> > problem is in mainloop.c -> setup_cancel_handler. Apparently you
> > can have multiple handlers and windows keeps track of them all,
> > even if they do the same thing. K
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nailed it.
>
> > problem is in mainloop.c -> setup_cancel_handler. Apparently you
can
> > have multiple handlers and windows keeps track of them all, even if
they
> > do the same thing. Keeping track of so many system handles would
> > naturally
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nailed it.
> problem is in mainloop.c -> setup_cancel_handler. Apparently you can
> have multiple handlers and windows keeps track of them all, even if they
> do the same thing. Keeping track of so many system handles would
> naturally slow the whol
12 matches
Mail list logo
