[patch edited + resubmitted for review; not for committing]
Hi Tom,
figuring that, on balance, you are in fact going to prefer to take a
potential future hit in duplicated work (in passing context in the fork/exec
case) over moving the client auth code to PostgresMain, I've just gone ahead
and m
Tom Lane wrote:
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Don't you have to put it in a specific place in the loop to make that
work? If not, why not?
Rep;nop is just a short delay - that's all.
That view seems to me to be directly contradicted by this stateme
I have a bi-Xeon 2.6G hyperthreaded if it helps... feel free
Regards
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:34:16 +0100
> From: Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHE
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> >> Now you've lost me - how is a user-inputted object name translatable?
>
> > Not all languages use "..." as quote symbols, but if you make them part of
> > some string that comes from the backe
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it seems we can either go with no quotes, or smart quotes (which my
> patch implemented). I feel my patch does the best of both worlds, by
> quoting as needed, and as the psql \d commands actually require anyway,
> and as used by pg_dump and in SQL q
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So it seems we can either go with no quotes, or smart quotes (which my
> > patch implemented). I feel my patch does the best of both worlds, by
> > quoting as needed, and as the psql \d commands actually require anyway,
> > and as us
Manfred Spraul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My guess: Pentium 4 cpu support something like 250 uops in flight - it
> will have a dozend of the spinlock loops in it's pipeline. When the
> spinlock is released, it must figure out which of the loops should get
> it, and gets lost. My guess is that
Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway, I've committed your patch with some changes.
Thanks.
BTW, I noticed a lot of concern in the Intel app notes about reserving
64 or even 128 bytes for each spinlock to avoid cache line conflicts.
That seems excessive to me (we use a lot of spinlocks for buffers), but
perh
Claudio Natoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't follow your thinking here. The information that has to be
>> reloaded *must* be passed across the fork/exec boundary in
>> either case.
> Yes. But not all of it.
I'll throw that same argument back at you: some of the information
needed for P
> > What I was suggesting with b) was to format up the command line for the
> > items prefixed by * in the postmaster,
> > do the fork (or fork/exec), and then run the authentication in, say
> > PostgresMain. (Note: this is essentially what the fork/exec case
currently
> > does).
>
> Yeah, I n
10 matches
Mail list logo
