Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Feb 13, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> We could possibly sleep() a bit before retrying, >> just to not suck 100% CPU, but that doesn't really *fix* anything ...
> Well, not only that, but the machine is currently writing to the > postmaster log at the rate of 2-3MB/s. ISTM some kind of sleep > (perhaps growing exponentially to some limit) would be a good idea. Well, since the code has always behaved that way and no one noticed before, I don't think it's worth anything as complicated as a variable delay. I just stuck a fixed 100msec delay into the accept-failed code path. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate