From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: More efficient build farm animal wakeup? |
Date: | 2022-11-23 21:59:48 |
Message-ID: | 3748318.1669240788@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:00 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 9:15 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Are you saying you still think it's worth pursuing longpoll or similar methods for it, or that this is good enough?
> I personally think it'd be pretty neat, to squeeze out that last bit
> of latency. Maybe it's overkill...
I can't get excited about pursuing the last ~30 seconds of delay
for launching tasks that are going to run 10 or 20 or more minutes
(where the future trend of those numbers is surely up not down).
The thing that was really significantly relevant here IMO was to
reduce the load on the central server, and I think we've done that.
Would adding longpoll reduce that further? In principle maybe,
but I'm not sure we have enough animals to make it worthwhile.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-23 22:05:03 | Re: odd buildfarm failure - "pg_ctl: control file appears to be corrupt" |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-11-23 21:59:26 | Re: odd buildfarm failure - "pg_ctl: control file appears to be corrupt" |