Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of vie jul 15 09:55:40 -0400 2011: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If the primary goal here is to reduce power consumption, another option > > would be to keep the regular wake-ups most of the time but have some > > mechanism for putting the process to sleep until wakened when no activity > > happens for a certain period of time - say, 10 cycles. I'm not at all sure > > that's better, but it would be less of a change to the existing behavior. > > Now we have them, latches seem the best approach because they (mostly) > avoid heuristics.
Yeah, there's no reason for "less of a change" to be a criterion to determine the best way forward. The new tech is clearly a better solution overall, so lets just get rid of the cruft. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
