Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption
Date: 2011-05-05 20:56:08
Message-ID: BANLkTinSd2_APiVWTRRT7JoV_EVt-N+yAw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> +              * The caveat about signals invalidating the timeout of
>> +              * WaitLatch() on some platforms can be safely disregarded,
>
> Really?

I'm a bit confused by the phrasing of this comment as well, but it
does seem to me that if all the relevant signal handlers set the
latch, then it ought not to be necessary to break the sleep down into
one-second intervals.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-05-05 21:08:02 Re: [BUGS] BUG #5957: createdb with description and md5 auth forces to provide password twice
Previous Message A.M. 2011-05-05 20:49:25 Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption