Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Дата
Msg-id 14769.1291699334@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Maybe we should have a single tunable for processes that just sleep
> waiting for events or postmaster death.  For example pgstats has a
> hardcoded 2 seconds, and the archiver process has a hardcoded value too
> AFAICS.

That would make sense once we get to the point where for all of those
processes, the sleep delay *only* affects the time to notice postmaster
death.  Right now I think there are still several other behaviors mixed
in with that, and not all of them necessarily want the same response
time.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jim Nasby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal
Следующее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: profiling connection overhead