Re: More idle thoughts
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: More idle thoughts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1269850510.3684.3605.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: More idle thoughts (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 12:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 18:59 +0000, Greg Stark wrote: > >> It occurs to me we could do the same for CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() by > >> conditionally having it call a function which calls gettimeofday and > >> compares with the previous timestamp received at the last CFI(). > > > Reducing latency sounds good, but what has CFI got to do with that? > > It took me about five minutes to figure out what Greg was on about too. > His point is that we need to locate code paths in which an extremely > long time can pass between successive CFI calls, because that means > the backend will fail to respond to SIGINT/SIGTERM for a long time. > Instrumenting CFI itself is a possible tool for that. I was thinking we could do this via signals, but actually instrumenting the code paths seems better. There probably are a few paths still to improve. Dare I suggest we follow the tried and tested open source approach of wait-for-complaint? Reducing latency elsewhere would be time better spent (!). I was thinking of adding a "reason" field onto ReadBuffer, so we can diagnose the source of buffer waits. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: