On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 05:26:23PM -0600, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
>
> > The code is based on some odd assumptions. A select() with 0 delay
> > returns immediately unless there is an interrupt during its (very short!)
>
> If you look closely, it's a select with a 2 second timeout.
>
> >>> { 2, 0 }
I don't see that in src/backend/storage/buffer/s_lock.c:
delay.tv_sec = 0;
delay.tv_usec = s_spincycle[spin % S_NSPINCYCLE];
(void) select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, &delay);
Nathan Myers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed the first tim... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed the ... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succ... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will ... Dominic J. Eidson
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() ... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succ... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() ... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TA... Alfred Perlstein
- RE: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed the ... Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed ... Nathan Myers
- RE: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed the ... Mikheev, Vadim
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succeed ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Assuming that TAS() will succ... Bruce Momjian
