| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
| Cc: | dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com, pg(at)bowt(dot)ie, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size |
| Date: | 2022-06-17 07:05:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20220617.160556.1675573261676681263.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Fri, 17 Jun 2022 15:59:26 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> At Fri, 17 Jun 2022 15:54:13 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > Or we could add a timeout.c API that specifies the timeout?
> >
> > I sometimes wanted this, But I don't see a simple way to sort multiple
> > relative timeouts in absolute time order. Maybe we can skip
> > GetCurrentTimestamp only when inserting the first timeout, but I don't
> > think it benefits this case.
>
> Or we can use a free-run interval timer and individual down-counter
> for each timtouts. I think we need at-most 0.1s resolution and error
> of long-run timer doesn't harm?
Yeah, stupid. We don't want awake process with such a high frequency..
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-06-17 07:17:10 | RE: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-06-17 07:01:42 | Re: Typo in ro.po file? |