Re: Adjustment of spinlock sleep delays

Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> After the first few sleeps should it add a random() element to the delay
> time?

Hmm, that's a thought --- but how big a random element?

Fooling with the original idea, I'm having trouble with getting both
plausible backoff and a reasonable number of attempts before failing.
I tried the sequence
10 msec, 20 msec, 40, 80, ..., 1280 (1.28 sec), repeat

but this only gives a couple of hundred tries before one minute has
elapsed, which seems uncomfortably low.  Maybe there's no alternative,
though, if we want any good-sized delays in there.
        regards, tom lane