Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process

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: 2011-08-10 08:44:46
Message-ID: CAEYLb_XRXFTFpsA4rAebf7zZ-BmTCRRejb-HRHQtoy78W2a26w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10 August 2011 01:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Actually, I'm nearly done with it already.  Perhaps you could start
> thinking about the other polling loops.

Fair enough. I'm slightly surprised that there doesn't need to be some
bikeshedding about my idea to treat the PGPROC latch as the generic,
per-process latch.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-08-10 09:21:55 Re: Enforcing that all WAL has been replayed after restoring from backup
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-08-10 08:15:49 Re: augmenting MultiXacts to improve foreign keys