| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers |
| Date: | 2022-11-30 03:49:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJCbcv8AtujLw3kEO2wRB7Ffzo1fmwaGG-tQLuMOjf6qQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 1:32 AM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Re-attaching patch for bgwriter and walwriter, so it is clear this is
> not yet committed.
I'm just curious, and not suggesting that 60s wakeups are a problem
for the polar ice caps, but why even time out at all? Are the latch
protocols involved not reliable enough? At a guess from a quick
glance, the walwriter's is but maybe the bgwriter could miss a wakeup
as it races against StrategyGetBuffer(), which means you might stay
asleep until the *next* buffer allocation, but that's already true I
think, and a 60s timeout is not much of a defence.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-11-30 03:56:53 | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Fujii.Yuki@df.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp | 2022-11-30 03:10:22 | RE: Partial aggregates pushdown |