Hoi Tom,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:33, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think I like the idea of having SignalBackend do the waking up a
> > slow backend but I'm not enthused by the "lets wake up (at once)
> > everyone that is behind". That's one of the issues I was explicitly
> > trying to solve. If there are any significant number of "slow"
> > backends then we get the "thundering herd" again.
>
> But do we care? With asyncQueueAdvanceTail gone from the listeners,
> there's no longer an exclusive lock for them to contend on. And,
> again, I failed to see any significant contention even in HEAD as it
> stands; so I'm unconvinced that you're solving a live problem.
You're right, they only acquire a shared lock which is much less of a
problem. And I forgot that we're still reducing the load from a few
hundred signals and exclusive locks per NOTIFY to perhaps a dozen
shared locks every thousand messages. You'd be hard pressed to
demonstrate there's a real problem here.
So I think your patch is fine as is.
Looking at the release cycle it looks like the earliest either of
these patches will appear in a release is PG13, right?
Thanks again.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/