From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove or weaken hints about "effective resolution of sleep delays is 10 ms"? |
Date: | 2016-02-16 08:06:57 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYFZbiFAvKTY5=eMovm8JcQr62P2_3BHf6RvGsMEpL3CQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Several places in our docs have blurbs like
>> Note that on many systems, the effective resolution of sleep delays is
>> 10 milliseconds; setting <varname>wal_writer_delay</> to a value that
>> is not a multiple of 10 might have the same results as setting it to
>> the next higher multiple of 10.
> Afaik that's not the case on any recent operating system/hardware. So
> perhaps we should just remove all of those blurbs, or just replace them
> with something like "on some older systems the effective resolution of
> sleep delays is limited to multiples of 10 milliseconds"?
Hmm, is that true? What we do we think the resolution is on modern
systems? I would not have guessed that to be inaccurate.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-02-16 08:11:56 | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-16 08:05:47 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Introduce group locking to prevent parallel processes from deadl |