Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could possibly sleep() a bit before retrying,
>> just to not suck 100% CPU, but that doesn't really *fix* anything ...
> Well, not only that, but the machine is currently writing to the
> postmaster log at the rate of 2-3MB/s. ISTM some kind of sleep
> (perhaps growing exponentially to some limit) would be a good idea.
Well, since the code has always behaved that way and no one noticed
before, I don't think it's worth anything as complicated as a variable
delay. I just stuck a fixed 100msec delay into the accept-failed code
path.
regards, tom lane