| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: perform_spin_delay() vs wait events |
| Date: | 2022-11-22 04:17:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20221122041708.mwwfyvnld2q76ssl@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-11-22 12:51:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:01:18PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I plan to push this soon unless somebody has further comments.
>
> > @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ typedef enum
> > WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_RETRIEVE_RETRY_INTERVAL,
> > WAIT_EVENT_REGISTER_SYNC_REQUEST,
> > WAIT_EVENT_VACUUM_DELAY,
> > - WAIT_EVENT_VACUUM_TRUNCATE
> > + WAIT_EVENT_VACUUM_TRUNCATE,
> > + WAIT_EVENT_SPIN_DELAY
> > } WaitEventTimeout;
>
> That would be fine for stable branches, but could you keep that in an
> alphabetical order on HEAD?
Fair point. I wasn't planning to backpatch.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-11-22 04:39:16 | Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-11-22 03:51:25 | Re: perform_spin_delay() vs wait events |