| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "lizenko79(at)gmail(dot)com" <lizenko79(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17073: docs - "Improve signal handling reliability" |
| Date: | 2021-07-01 06:30:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ-tBGmyCPP2MH3a98NsbrsYJ7jfOFFZ3t5yrSy-x8dtA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2021-Jun-30, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> > We forget to check for interrupts before sleeping in an otherwise
> busy-wait
> > loop. We corrected the oversight.
>
> (It's not a busy-wait loop, just a sleep, unless I misunderstand.)
>
I was just repeating the code comment:
* and retry from the archive, but if it hasn't been long
* since last attempt, sleep wal_retrieve_retry_interval
* milliseconds to avoid busy-waiting.
Which is why I went with “an otherwise busy-wait loop” as a rephrasing of
“avoid busy-waiting”.
I concur that this seems back-patch worthy.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | talk to ben | 2021-07-01 12:05:52 | Re: BUG #17061: Impossible to query the fields of the tuple created by SEARCH BREADTH FIRST BY .. SET .. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-01 03:47:46 | Re: Postregres-9.3 redhad 7 |