Re: Remove or weaken hints about "effective resolution of sleep delays is 10 ms"?

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove or weaken hints about "effective resolution of sleep delays is 10 ms"?
Date: 2016-02-18 23:40:23
Message-ID: CAM3SWZQzOOC-26ndmxAw3etUHH3A88JG=ee+ccT_Y2dTd82oMQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Given this, I'm on board with just removing the weasel-wording about
> timer resolution, except maybe for commit_delay where useful values
> are small enough that it's a hazard on old systems.

+1, but I'd move the guidance for commit_delay's effective resolution
from "29.4. WAL Configuration" to where commit_delay is introduced,
"18.5. Write Ahead Log".

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-02-18 23:57:00 Re: [DOCS] The number of bytes is stored in index_size of pgstatindex() ?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2016-02-18 23:32:47 Re: New pg_upgrade data directory inside old one?