On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 06:59:28AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > The attached, to apply on top of 0001, fix the issue. However it handles only > the > WaitLatch in ProcSleep() case and I start to have concern about the others > WaitLatch() > that would/could be "woken up" every 1s.
Hmm, I indeed suspect that is may not be the only one.. This is much bigger. > Using disable_timeout() and enable_timeout_after() in WaitEventSetWait() does > not > look like a great answer to this concern, so I wonder if we should use a > larger > flush frequency instead (as proposed up-thread), thoughts? Only a larger frequency is not the correct answer here. It would just reduce the frequency of the extra lock wait messages for one: these should never appear more than necessary. And how about for example extension code? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
