On Feb24, 2011, at 04:14 , Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IOW, at least on Linux, you *can* arrange to get a signal when your
>> parent process dies.
>
> That's pretty cool.
>
>> Not sure how ugly it'd be to use this call when available and a time
>> del
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> IOW, at least on Linux, you *can* arrange to get a signal when your
> parent process dies.
That's pretty cool.
> Not sure how ugly it'd be to use this call when available and a time
> delay when not, but it's something to think about.
Yeah. It
We've touched a few times on trying to get rid of the
sleep-awhile-and-check-for-something-to-do loops in PG's auxiliary
processes, mainly to satisfy people who complain about CPU power
consumption when idle. I can see how most of the something-to-do
checks can be reimplemented using latches, but
