| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted |
| Date: | 2024-08-09 19:03:55 |
| Message-ID: | ZrZoG3uZmUOgbHOv@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 03:01:20PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Thanks. This one looks pretty good to me, and so I plan to commit it in
> the near future unless anyone voices concerns about the approach.
As I am preparing this for commit, I'm wondering whether it makes sense to
name the new function vacuum_sleep() and keep it private to vacuum.c.
Nothing about this function is terribly specific to vacuum, and it's not
inconceivable that it might be useful elsewhere. Perhaps we should move it
to pgsleep.c and rename it to something to the effect of
pg_usleep_non_interruptable().
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-08-09 19:26:44 | Re: is_superuser versus set_config_option's parallelism check |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-09 18:43:59 | is_superuser versus set_config_option's parallelism check |