Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> > I'm attaching a patch for each option. Each one independently solves the
> > problem. But I think we should do both. There is no point in issuing
> > unnecessary kill system calls, and there may also be more spurious wake-ups
> > than just these o
Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'm attaching a patch for each option. Each one independently solves the
> problem. But I think we should do both. There is no point in issuing
> unnecessary kill system calls, and there may also be more spurious wake-ups
> than just these ones.
I modified patch 1 a bit --
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'm attaching a patch for each option. Each one independently solves the
> problem. But I think we should do both. There is no point in issuing
> unnecessary kill system calls, and there may also be more spurious wake-ups
> than just these one
Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> The "-r" option to pg_basebackup is supposed to throttle the rate of the
> backup. But it only works properly if the server is mostly idle.
>
> Every non-trivial call to XLogFlush or XLogBackgroundFlush will wake up t
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> The "-r" option to pg_basebackup is supposed to throttle the rate of the
> backup. But it only works properly if the server is mostly idle.
>
> Every non-trivial call to XLogFlush or XLogBackgroundFlush will wake up
> the wal sender (the one wh
The "-r" option to pg_basebackup is supposed to throttle the rate of the
backup. But it only works properly if the server is mostly idle.
Every non-trivial call to XLogFlush or XLogBackgroundFlush will wake up the
wal sender (the one which is not really sending wal, but base files), and
the throt
