| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_usleep for multisecond delays |
| Date: | 2023-02-10 15:18:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4077536.1676042314@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I somehow feel that we should be trying to get rid of cases where
> WaitLatch is not desired.
+1
> I wonder if we should have a wrapper around WaitLatch() that documents
> that if the latch is set before the time expires, it will reset the
> latch and try again to wait for the remaining time, after checking for
> interrupts etc.
Resetting the latch seems not very friendly for general-purpose use
... although I guess we could set it again on the way out.
BTW, we have an existing pg_sleep() function that deals with all
of this except re-setting the latch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-02-10 15:21:49 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-10 14:58:25 | Re: pg_usleep for multisecond delays |