| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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: | 2024-08-13 15:57:24 |
| Message-ID: | ZruCZOKzS0LGAGTb@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:47:51AM -0500, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
> On 8/13/24 10:09 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 05:35:08PM -0500, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>> > > Skimming the last few messages of that thread [0], it looks like Bertrand
>> > > is exploring ways to avoid so many interrupts. I guess the unavoidable
>> > > question is whether this work is still worthwhile given that improvement.
>> > The way the instrumentation in [0] dealt with interrupts was too complex,
>> > which is why it seemed better to handle the restart the remainder of the
>> > sleep in the sleep function
>> Can you elaborate on how it is too complex?
>>
> [0] made vacuum_delay_point more complex as it has to
> instrument cost_delay at an interval to reduce the number
> of interrupts to the leader.
Sure, but looking at the patch [0], it adds maybe an extra 10 lines of code
to limit the reports to 1 Hz. That doesn't strike me as too complex...
[0] https://postgr.es/m/ZnlPZZZJCRu/8fka%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2024-08-13 16:07:46 | Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted |
| Previous Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2024-08-13 15:47:51 | Re: Restart pg_usleep when interrupted |