| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress |
| Date: | 2011-09-19 18:42:53 |
| Message-ID: | m2ty882x1u.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> On machines where gettimeofday is slow (and last I heard there were
> still lots of them), any such thing would be a disaster
> performance-wise. I'm still afraid to add more gettimeofday's into the
> query parse/plan/execute code path, even though it would greatly ease
> the problem of figuring out whether re-planning is worthwhile.
Excuse my ignorance here, but is SIGALARM less of a problem? Then you
could ask the system for an alarm next second and count the alarms
rather than poll the clock. We don't need high precision in both those
cases I guess.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-09-19 18:59:55 | Re: Is there really no interest in SQL Standard? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-09-19 17:46:36 | Re: CUDA Sorting |