| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flush some statistics within running transactions |
| Date: | 2026-01-28 06:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | aXmuKZz8sXPLCumT@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 06:59:28AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> The attached, to apply on top of 0001, fix the issue. However it handles only the
> WaitLatch in ProcSleep() case and I start to have concern about the others WaitLatch()
> that would/could be "woken up" every 1s.
Hmm, I indeed suspect that is may not be the only one.. This is much bigger.
> Using disable_timeout() and enable_timeout_after() in WaitEventSetWait() does not
> look like a great answer to this concern, so I wonder if we should use a larger
> flush frequency instead (as proposed up-thread), thoughts?
Only a larger frequency is not the correct answer here. It would just
reduce the frequency of the extra lock wait messages for one: these
should never appear more than necessary. And how about for example
extension code?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-01-28 06:38:17 | Re: Fix grammar in comment describing LP_DEAD hint safety |
| Previous Message | Xiangyu Liang | 2026-01-28 06:20:32 | Fix grammar in comment describing LP_DEAD hint safety |