On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not getting what exactly you are suggesting here. The wait loop
>> is intended for the case when some workers are not started. We want
>> to wait for sometime before checking again whether workers are
>> started. I wanted to avoid busy looping waiting for some worker to
>> start. I think in most cases we don't need to wait, but for some
>> corner cases where postmaster didn't get chance to start a worker, we
>> should avoid busy looping waiting for a worker to start.
>
> I agree we need to avoid busy-looping. What I'm saying is that we
> don't need a timeout. Why do you think we need a timeout?
>
I thought we need it for worker startup, but now after again looking
at the code, it seems we do notify at worker startup as well. So, we
don't need a timeout.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com