Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> On machines where gettimeofday is slow (and last I heard there were
> still lots of them), any such thing would be a disaster
> performance-wise.  I'm still afraid to add more gettimeofday's into the
> query parse/plan/execute code path, even though it would greatly ease
> the problem of figuring out whether re-planning is worthwhile.

Excuse my ignorance here, but is SIGALARM less of a problem?  Then you
could ask the system for an alarm next second and count the alarms
rather than poll the clock.  We don't need high precision in both those
cases I guess.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support