X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB1ED8ED6; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:14:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06797-03; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:14:37 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from svr2.postgresql.org (svr2.postgresql.org [65.19.161.25]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7945CD680C; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:14:37 -0400 (AST) Received: from fetter.org (dsl092-188-065.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.188.65]) by svr2.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E2DF131B; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:14:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fetter.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by fetter.org (8.13.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jA4IEVIl005015; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:14:32 -0800 Received: (from shackle@localhost) by fetter.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jA4IEVt7005014; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:14:31 -0800 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:14:31 -0800 From: David Fetter To: Tom Lane Cc: Merlin Moncure , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] insert performance for win32 Message-ID: <20051104181431.GA4017@fetter.org> References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD7D3@Herge.rcsinc.local> <15926.1131127280@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15926.1131127280@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.05 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050] X-Spam-Score: 0.05 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/162 X-Sequence-Number: 75444 On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" 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 whole process down. > > Yipes. So we really want to do that only once. > > 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? > > 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. In light of this, are we *sure* what we've got a is a candidate for release? Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!