On 2021-Jun-30, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 5:54 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
> wrote:
> > Since this explains the commit 2945a488a, it's better to describe
> > something like the following?
> The wording still needs some work...but is this even release note worthy?
>
> We forget to check for interrupts before sleeping in an otherwise busy-wait
> loop. We corrected the oversight.
Yeah, it's a good question. I wonder if this should be back-patched, so
it'd be noted as a bugfix in the next set of minors rather than as a new
feature for 14.
(It's not a busy-wait loop, just a sleep, unless I misunderstand.)
> Most of what I'm reading says this only impacted the startup of the standby
> process; normal operations already worked correctly. Is that correct?
Yes, because the change is in WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable().
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Right now the sectors on the hard disk run clockwise, but I heard a rumor that
you can squeeze 0.2% more throughput by running them counterclockwise.
It's worth the effort. Recommended." (Gerry Pourwelle)