On 27 January 2017 at 01:35, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>> I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS >>> for now, but I think it'd better to replace it with a latch. >> Replacing with a latch wouldn't be backpatchable, IMHO. >> I've no problem if you want to work on a deeper fix for future versions. > > A deeper fix for HEAD proves to not be that complicated. Please see > the attached. The other two calls of pg_usleep() in standby.c are > waiting with 5ms and 10ms, it is not worth switching them to a latch. So you think 2 calls to pg_usleep() can stay; my opinion is 3 can stay. I'm not clear why this particular call is worthy, while dozens of calls in other modules remain unchanged. This seems like a code issue rather than anything to do with Hot Standby in particular, so it should be another thread. Doesn't seem important compared to other things for this release I should work on. Please add to the next CF so it gets proper review. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
