| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver |
| Date: | 2022-11-08 08:45:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLYc7iSh2Eg65HsH49tjPM=AERW-R=2-zg_mORXc+WdeQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks. Do we need a similar wakeup approach for logical replication
> workers in worker.c? Or is it okay that the nap time is 1sec there?
Yeah, I think so. At least for its idle/nap case (waiting for flush
is also a technically interesting case, but harder, and applies to
non-idle systems so the polling is a little less offensive).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2022-11-08 09:04:00 | Re: Condition pushdown: why (=) is pushed down into join, but BETWEEN or >= is not? |
| Previous Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2022-11-08 08:43:57 | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |