> It does seem to me that we should Poissonize the throttle time, then
> subtract the average overhead, rather than Poissonizing the difference.
After thinking again about Jeff's point and failing to sleep, I think that
doing exactly that is better because: - it is "right" - the code is simpler and shorter - my transaction stuck sequence
issueis not that big an issue anyway
Here is a patch to schedule transactions along Poisson-distributed events.
This patch replaces my previous proposal.
Note that there is no reference to the current time after the stochastic
process is initiated. This is necessary, and mean that if transactions lag
behind the throttle at some point they will try to catch up later. Neither
a good nor a bad thing, mostly a feature.
--
Fabien