On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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: >> 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.
This patch replaces one call of pg_usleep() where the wait can go up to 1s, this is largely noticeable by the user. The two others sleep for a maximum of 10ms. Even if a latch is used the code path is going to exit immediately anyway. That's why you added a call to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS only here, no? > 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. Some should switch to Latch. > Doesn't seem important compared to other > things for this release I should work on. That's your call. > Please add to the next CF so it gets proper review. Sure. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers