* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> I wouldn't want to do this every time through the postmaster's main loop, > >> but we could do this once an hour for no added cost by adding the check > >> where it does TouchSocketLockFiles; or once every few minutes if we > >> carried a separate variable like last_touch_time. Once an hour would be > >> plenty to fix the buildfarm's problem, I should think. > > > I have a bad (?) habit of doing exactly this during development and > > would really like it to be a bit more often than once/hour, unless > > there's a particular problem with that. > > Yeah, Josh mentioned the same. It would only take another three or four > lines of code to decouple it from TouchSocketLockFiles, and then it's > just a question of how much are you worried about the performance cost of > additional file-open attempts. I think either one-minute or five-minute > intervals would be pretty defensible.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't strike me as a terribly expensive operation, and once a minute would work out quite well for my needs, at least. Running for long after pg_control has disappeared doesn't strike me as a great idea anyway.. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
