| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(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 19:26:46 |
| Message-ID: | ZrZtdpTN7nLI4L8h@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:03:55PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> 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().
Yeah, I had the same thought in [1], so +1.
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZpDhS4nFX66ItAze%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-09 20:04:15 | Re: is_superuser versus set_config_option's parallelism check |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-08-09 19:26:44 | Re: is_superuser versus set_config_option's parallelism check |