Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay (WalSndDelay) has served its purpose

2011-08-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> AFAICS we could get rid of WalSndDelay: there is no longer any reason >> for the walsender loop to wake up unless it's received a latch event. >> (Its WaitLatch call is missing WL_POSTMAST

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay (WalSndDelay) has served its purpose

2011-08-10 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > AFAICS we could get rid of WalSndDelay: there is no longer any reason > for the walsender loop to wake up unless it's received a latch event. > (Its WaitLatch call is missing WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH right now, but that > is easily fixed.)  Is anyone

[HACKERS] wal_sender_delay (WalSndDelay) has served its purpose

2011-08-10 Thread Tom Lane
AFAICS we could get rid of WalSndDelay: there is no longer any reason for the walsender loop to wake up unless it's received a latch event. (Its WaitLatch call is missing WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH right now, but that is easily fixed.) Is anyone sufficiently attached to that GUC to not want to see it go