> On 2011-05-10 14:36:31, Alan Conway wrote: > > Does this affect performance at all? > > Looks ok to me but I'm not up on why we need to flush here.
Performance? Dang you, Conway! Turns out it does affect the performance of the transient case - about 10% hit. I've got a refactored patch that avoids any unnecessary overhead in the path where messages complete synchronously. I'll upload that now. - Kenneth ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/701/#review657 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-05-09 21:22:38, Kenneth Giusti wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/701/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-05-09 21:22:38) > > > Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Gordon Sim, and Kim van der Riet. > > > Summary > ------- > > Broker now issues an explicit flush for each received message that has the > sync flag set in the message.transfer command. > Broker also tracks all messages received that do _not_ have the sync flag > set, and will flush these messages on receipt of an execution.sync. > > > This addresses bug QPID-3252. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3252 > > > Diffs > ----- > > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SessionState.h 1101206 > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/SessionState.cpp 1101206 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/701/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > qpid unit & store unit > > > Thanks, > > Kenneth > >
