Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process
Дата
Msg-id 13856.1312927678@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Attached is revision of this patch that now treats the latch in
> PGPROC, waitLatch, as the generic "process latch", rather than just
> using it for sync rep; It is initialised appropriately as a shared
> latch generically, within InitProcGlobal(), and ownership is
> subsequently set within InitProcess(). We were doing so before, though
> only for the benefit of sync rep.

Now that I've got the WaitLatch code fully swapped into my head,
I'm thinking of pushing on to review/commit this patch of Peter's.

> On 18 July 2011 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Right, we can easily change the timeout argument to be in milliseconds
>> instead of microseconds.

> I've done so in this latest revision as a precautionary measure. I
> don't see much point in sub-millisecond granularity, and besides, the
> Windows implementation will not provide that granularity anyway as
> things stand.

I did not see any objections to such a change.  I think we should pull
out this aspect and commit it to 9.1 as well as HEAD.  That will provide
one less gotcha for anyone who develops against the 9.1 latch code and
later needs to port to 9.2.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Ignore lost+found when checking if a directory is empty
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process