| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wait events for delayed checkpoints |
| Date: | 2023-10-12 23:09:21 |
| Message-ID: | ZSh8oYlewbeHhmeH@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 01:32:29PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> IPC seems right to me. Yeah, a timeout is being used, but as you say,
> that's an implementation detail.
>
> +1 for the idea, too.
Agreed that timeout makes little sense in this context, and IPC looks
correct.
+ pgstat_report_wait_start(WAIT_EVENT_CHECKPOINT_DELAY_START);
do
{
pg_usleep(10000L); /* wait for 10 msec */
} while (HaveVirtualXIDsDelayingChkpt(vxids, nvxids,
DELAY_CHKPT_START));
+ pgstat_report_wait_end();
HaveVirtualXIDsDelayingChkpt() does immediately a LWLockAcquire()
which would itself report a wait event for ProcArrayLock, overwriting
this new one, no?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2023-10-12 23:10:09 | Re: interval_ops shall stop using btequalimage (deduplication) |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-10-12 22:54:01 | Re: On login trigger: take three |