Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver

From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(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 08:20:25
Message-ID: CALj2ACVD6XPFep74DcrvbUuWhdDaxDhKg0mP8c7=4CRgp6hHjQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 1:17 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> And with that change and a pgindent, pushed.

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?

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-11-08 08:40:20 Re: libpq support for NegotiateProtocolVersion
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-11-08 07:49:27 Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum