Re: The efficiency of the WAL log writer

On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 10:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Steven Elliott <selliott4(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't think the current behavior is particularly harmful, but maybe
> > PostgreSQL could be made to idle more quietly.
>
> Yeah, this is something that's on my personal to-do list. It's not
> really an efficiency/performance issue, but in a machine that's
> otherwise idle this behavior is bad for overall CPU power consumption.

I see what you mean that it's more of a CPU power consumption issue than
efficiency. That makes sense.

This is a small issue that I've been meaning to ask about. Thanks for
getting back to me.

> The plan is to try to use the "latch" primitives that were recently
> added to the code to eliminate sleep-and-check-for-something-to-do
> loops. Didn't get done for 9.1 unfortunately.

Sounds good.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steven Elliott | http://selliott.org | selliott4(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com |
------------------------------------------------------------------------