| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Yura Sokolov <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Walsender timeouts and large transactions |
| Date: | 2017-12-05 20:07:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYCnnFXNTk6EuXTxWs9CPg5X5vhOpTYxnsPzjvCfZOKeA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> To me it looks like it's time to get this committed, marking as such.
This version has noticeably more code rearrangement than before, and
I'm not sure that is actually buying us anything. Why not keep the
changes minimal?
Also, TBH, this doesn't seem to have been carefully reviewed for style:
- if (!pq_is_send_pending())
- return;
+ /* Try taking fast path unless we get too close to walsender timeout. */
+ if (now < TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(last_reply_timestamp,
+ wal_sender_timeout / 2))
+ {
+ if (!pq_is_send_pending())
+ return;
+ }
Generally we write if (a && b) { ... } not if (a) { if (b) .. }
- }
+ };
It's hard to understand how this got through review.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-12-05 20:35:20 | Re: dsa_allocate could not find 4 free pages |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-05 19:48:32 | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |