From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Latch-ifying the syslogger process |
Date: | 2012-05-12 22:59:20 |
Message-ID: | 4FAEEB48.50003@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/12/2012 04:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 05/12/2012 03:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I noticed a large oversight in our efforts to reduce the server's idle
>> wakeup frequency: if you've got logging_collector turned on, the
>> syslogger process will wake up once a second, whether it has anything
>> to do or not. But the only reasons it has for waking up are signals,
>> data arrival, and time-based logfile rotation, and it is easy to
>> calculate the time until the next logfile rotation event. So this
>> seems really easy to latch-ify, and I would like to apply the attached
>> patch if there are not objections. I do not however have the ability
>> to test the Windows side of it, so it'd be nice if someone would check
>> that that still works (particularly, that it shuts down cleanly).
>
>
> I can do that. I'm doing some Windows investigation ATM so this won't
> be hard to add on to it.
>
> It's worth pointing out that the buildfarm client doesn't currently
> test the syslogger at all. It probably should, at least optionally.
> That wouldn't be too hard to arrange. A SMOP :-)
>
>
Everything looks kosher on my Windows machine (tested both MSVC and
Mingw64 builds)
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-12 23:23:41 | Re: Latch-ifying the syslogger process |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-05-12 22:42:48 | Re: Credit in the release notes WAS: Draft release notes complete |