| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |
| Date: | 2026-01-05 14:07:00 |
| Message-ID: | 202601051404.qkpher3pinlm@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-Jan-05, Antonin Houska wrote:
> Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Probably it is because
> > > 100000L, /* XXX Tune the delay. */
> >
> > 100 seconds is clearly too much.
>
> I confused milliseconds with microseconds. Since I was only running the code
> with debugger, the long delays didn't appear to be a problem.
>
> Instead of tuning the timeout, I'm thinking of introducing a condition
> variable that signals WAL flushing.
I think there is a patch that adds support for this in the queue already
-- see this message:
https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds-KiZRuCruc0jHxLSxLqzKcHJGwOFFA0b_RgaJvtUOEQ@mail.gmail.com
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"¿Qué importan los años? Lo que realmente importa es comprobar que
a fin de cuentas la mejor edad de la vida es estar vivo" (Mafalda)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2026-01-05 14:30:04 | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_policy_ddl() function to reconstruct CREATE POLICY statement |
| Previous Message | Henson Choi | 2026-01-05 13:57:53 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |