From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken |
Date: | 2023-03-09 21:40:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGL5Nnr7gp_APfqPQX9ow5OzArXFbpPD1ch0=nrXzBt07g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:26 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think that 4753ef37e0ed undid the work caf626b2c did to support
> sub-millisecond delays for vacuum and autovacuum.
>
> After 4753ef37e0ed, vacuum_delay_point()'s local variable msec is a
> double which, after being passed to WaitLatch() as timeout, which is a
> long, ends up being 0, so we don't end up waiting AFAICT.
>
> When I set [autovacuum_]vacuum_delay_point to 0.5, SHOW will report that
> it is 500us, but WaitLatch() is still getting 0 as timeout.
Given that some of the clunkier underlying kernel primitives have
milliseconds in their interface, I don't think it would be possible to
make a usec-based variant of WaitEventSetWait() that works everywhere.
Could it possibly make sense to do something that accumulates the
error, so if you're using 0.5 then every second vacuum_delay_point()
waits for 1ms?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-09 21:50:11 | Re: Date-time extraneous fields with reserved keywords |
Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-03-09 21:26:02 | Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken |