Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-12-08 Thread Craig Ringer
On 12/05/2014 08:03 PM, David Rowley wrote: On 2 December 2014 at 15:36, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com mailto:cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 12/01/2014 09:51 PM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: I think this is a leftover, as you don't use elog afterwards. Good catch, fixed.

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-12-05 Thread David Rowley
On 2 December 2014 at 15:36, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 12/01/2014 09:51 PM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: I think this is a leftover, as you don't use elog afterwards. Good catch, fixed. I've looked over this again and tested it on a windows 8.1 machine. I cannot find any

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-12-01 Thread Craig Ringer
Hi all I've attached a revised patchset for GetSystemTimeAsFileTime and GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime to address David Rowley's review notes. Thanks for the review, and for poking me to follow up. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-12-01 Thread Marco Nenciarini
Il 01/12/14 14:16, Craig Ringer ha scritto: +#ifndef FRONTEND +#include utils/elog.h +#endif + I think this is a leftover, as you don't use elog afterwards. Regards, Marco -- Marco Nenciarini - 2ndQuadrant Italy PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support marco.nenciar...@2ndquadrant.it |

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-12-01 Thread Craig Ringer
On 12/01/2014 09:51 PM, Marco Nenciarini wrote: I think this is a leftover, as you don't use elog afterwards. Good catch, fixed. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services From

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 10/23/2014 09:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Agreed - I think if you want an error check here it should use elog() or ereport(), not Assert(). That's what I originally did, but it's too early for elog. I'm reluctant to

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-23 Thread David Rowley
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's an updated patch addressing David's points. I haven't had a chance to test it yet, on win2k8 or win2k12 due to pgconf.eu . Hi Craig, thanks for the fast turnaround. I've just had a look over the patch again:

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-23 Thread Craig Ringer
On 10/23/2014 11:41 AM, David Rowley wrote: I'm not a big fan of this. It seems quite strange to be using Assert in this way. I'd rather see any error just silently fall back on GetSystemTimeAsFileTime() instead of this. That's fair. I'd like some visibility into it, but I don't think it's

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:41 AM, David Rowley dgrowle...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Here's an updated patch addressing David's points. I haven't had a chance to test it yet, on win2k8 or win2k12 due to pgconf.eu . Hi Craig,

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-23 Thread Craig Ringer
On 10/23/2014 09:21 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Agreed - I think if you want an error check here it should use elog() or ereport(), not Assert(). That's what I originally did, but it's too early for elog. I'm reluctant to just fprintf(...) to stderr, as there's no way for the user to suppress that,

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-22 Thread David Rowley
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On 09/17/2014 08:27 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Attached is a patch to switch 9.5 over to using the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call instead of separate GetSystemTime and SystemTimeToFileTime calls. Following

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-22 Thread Craig Ringer
On 10/22/2014 04:12 PM, David Rowley wrote: I was just having a quick look at this with the view of testing it on a windows 8 machine. Thankyou. I really appreciate your taking the time to do this, as one of the barriers to getting Windows-specific patches accepted is that usually people just

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-10-22 Thread Craig Ringer
Here's an updated patch addressing David's points. I haven't had a chance to test it yet, on win2k8 or win2k12 due to pgconf.eu . -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services From

[HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Craig Ringer
Hi all Attached is a patch to switch 9.5 over to using the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call instead of separate GetSystemTime and SystemTimeToFileTime calls. This patch the first step in improving PostgreSQL's support for Windows high(er) resolution time. In addition to requiring one less call into

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/17/2014 08:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Attached is a patch to switch 9.5 over to using the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call instead of separate GetSystemTime and SystemTimeToFileTime calls. This patch the first step in improving PostgreSQL's support for Windows high(er) resolution

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 09/17/2014 08:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Attached is a patch to switch 9.5 over to using the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call instead of separate GetSystemTime and SystemTimeToFileTime calls. That will presumably breaK XP. I know XP has been declared

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-09-17 11:19:36 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/17/2014 08:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Attached is a patch to switch 9.5 over to using the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call instead of separate GetSystemTime and SystemTimeToFileTime calls. This patch the first step in

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/17/2014 12:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-09-17 11:19:36 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/17/2014 08:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all Attached is a patch to switch 9.5 over to using the GetSystemTimeAsFileTime call instead of separate GetSystemTime and SystemTimeToFileTime

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-09-17 09:38:59 -0700, Tom Lane wrote: On the Unix side, I know exactly what would happen to a patch proposing that we replace gettimeofday() with clock_gettime() with no thought for backwards compatibility. Btw, do you plan to pursue clock_gettime()? It'd be really neat to have it...

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes: On 2014-09-17 09:38:59 -0700, Tom Lane wrote: On the Unix side, I know exactly what would happen to a patch proposing that we replace gettimeofday() with clock_gettime() with no thought for backwards compatibility. Btw, do you plan to pursue

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Craig Ringer
On 09/17/2014 11:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 09/17/2014 08:27 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: Hi all On Windows 2012 and Windows 8 I'd like to use the new GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime call instead. As this requires some extra hoop-jumping to safely and efficiently use it without breaking

Re: [HACKERS] [Windows,PATCH] Use faster, higher precision timer API

2014-09-17 Thread Craig Ringer
On 09/18/2014 12:58 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Oh, hmm, yes, you're right. For some reason I was thinking W2K was later than XP. I get more random memory errors as I get older ... It's because people say Win2k3 / Win2k8 / Win2k8r2 / Win2k12 a lot as shorthand for Windows Server 2003