Hi, On 2014-01-15 18:52:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Another thing I found a bit strange was the use of the latch. What this > patch does is create a separate latch which is used for the throttling. > This means that if the walsender process receives a signal, it will not > wake up if it's sleeping in throttling. Perhaps this is okay: as Andres > was quoted upthread as saying, maybe this is not a problem because the > sleep times are typically short anyway. But we're pretty much used to > the idea that whenever a signal is sent, processes act on it > *immediately*. Maybe some admin will not feel comfortable about waiting > some extra 20ms when they cancel their base backups. In any case, > having a secondary latch to sleep on in a process seems weird. Maybe > this should be using MyWalSnd->latch somehow.
Yes, this definitely should reuse MyWalSnd->latch. slightly related: we should start to reuse procLatch for walsenders instead of having a separate latch someday. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
