| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver |
| Date: | 2022-11-08 21:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20221108210826.GB636909@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:40PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks. Do we need a similar wakeup approach for logical replication
>> workers in worker.c? Or is it okay that the nap time is 1sec there?
>
> Yeah, I think so. At least for its idle/nap case (waiting for flush
> is also a technically interesting case, but harder, and applies to
> non-idle systems so the polling is a little less offensive).
Bharath, are you planning to pick this up? If not, I can probably spend
some time on it.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-11-08 22:42:36 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-11-08 21:06:39 | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver |