On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am not getting what exactly you are suggesting here. The wait loop >> is intended for the case when some workers are not started. We want >> to wait for sometime before checking again whether workers are >> started. I wanted to avoid busy looping waiting for some worker to >> start. I think in most cases we don't need to wait, but for some >> corner cases where postmaster didn't get chance to start a worker, we >> should avoid busy looping waiting for a worker to start. > > I agree we need to avoid busy-looping. What I'm saying is that we > don't need a timeout. Why do you think we need a timeout? >
I thought we need it for worker startup, but now after again looking at the code, it seems we do notify at worker startup as well. So, we don't need a timeout. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
