From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process |
Date: | 2011-08-09 23:25:03 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_Vp8OWJPRVd7peea+86pEHuSKCGQnf=KZL12tZjwtRbng@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 August 2011 23:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Now that I've got the WaitLatch code fully swapped into my head,
> I'm thinking of pushing on to review/commit this patch of Peter's.
Thanks for giving this your attention. I had already planned to
produce a new revision this weekend, so I'd appreciate it if you could
hold off until Sunday or Monday.
> I did not see any objections to such a change. I think we should pull
> out this aspect and commit it to 9.1 as well as HEAD. That will provide
> one less gotcha for anyone who develops against the 9.1 latch code and
> later needs to port to 9.2.
That is a good point. I'm aware that someone already made the mistake
of giving the value of timeout as milliseconds rather than
microseconds at one point, so this seems to be a fertile source of
confusion.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-10 00:00:32 | Re: augmenting MultiXacts to improve foreign keys |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-08-09 22:07:58 | Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process |