|From:||Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Slight improvement of worker_spi.c example|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 02:08:03PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the problem in respect of naptime
> Julien is referring to. If you know what this problem is and how to
> fix it, go for it. I'll review and test the code then. I can write the
> part of the patch that fixes the part regarding dynamic workers if
Oh, sorry I thought it was somewhat evident.
The naptime GUC description says:
> Duration between each check (in seconds).
and the associated code does a single
WaitLatch(..., WL_LATCH_SET | WL_TIMEOUT, ...)
So unless I'm missing something nothing prevents the check being run way more
often than expected if the latch keeps being set.
Similarly, my understanding of "duration between checks" is that a naptime of 1
min means that the check should be run a minute apart, assuming it's possible.
As is, the checks are run naptime + query execution time apart, which doesn't
seem right. Obviously there's isn't much you can do if the query execution
lasts for more than naptime, apart from detecting it and raising a warning to
let users know that their configuration isn't adequate (or that there's some
other problem like some lock contention or something), similarly to e.g.
Note I haven't looked closely at this module otherwise, so I can't say if there
are some other problems around.
|Next Message||Masahiro Ikeda||2023-06-16 02:17:37||Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions|
|Previous Message||Masahiro Ikeda||2023-06-16 02:14:05||Re: Support to define custom wait events for extensions|