| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More idle thoughts |
| Date: | 2010-03-28 16:47:02 |
| Message-ID: | 22899.1269794822@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 18:59 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
>> It occurs to me we could do the same for CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() by
>> conditionally having it call a function which calls gettimeofday and
>> compares with the previous timestamp received at the last CFI().
> Reducing latency sounds good, but what has CFI got to do with that?
It took me about five minutes to figure out what Greg was on about too.
His point is that we need to locate code paths in which an extremely
long time can pass between successive CFI calls, because that means
the backend will fail to respond to SIGINT/SIGTERM for a long time.
Instrumenting CFI itself is a possible tool for that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-28 17:23:11 | Re: join removal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-28 16:38:08 | Re: join removal |