| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |
| Date: | 2010-12-07 05:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | 14769.1291699334@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-12-07 06:41:07 | Re: profiling connection overhead |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-12-07 03:51:58 | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |