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(). -- nathan
