Sami Imseih <samims...@gmail.com> writes:
> Reattaching the patch.
I feel like this is fundamentally a wrong solution, for the reasons
cited in the comment for pg_usleep: long sleeps are a bad idea
because of the resulting uncertainty about whether we'll respond to
interrupts and such promptly. An example here is that if we get
a query cancel interrupt, we should probably not insist on finishing
out the current sleep before responding.
Therefore, rather than "improving" pg_usleep (and uglifying its API),
the right answer is to fix parallel vacuum leaders to not depend on
pg_usleep in the first place. A better idea might be to use
pg_sleep() or equivalent code.
regards, tom lane
