On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 10:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Steven Elliott <sellio...@austin.rr.com> writes: > > I don't think the current behavior is particularly harmful, but maybe > > PostgreSQL could be made to idle more quietly. > > Yeah, this is something that's on my personal to-do list. It's not > really an efficiency/performance issue, but in a machine that's > otherwise idle this behavior is bad for overall CPU power consumption.
I see what you mean that it's more of a CPU power consumption issue than efficiency. That makes sense. This is a small issue that I've been meaning to ask about. Thanks for getting back to me. > The plan is to try to use the "latch" primitives that were recently > added to the code to eliminate sleep-and-check-for-something-to-do > loops. Didn't get done for 9.1 unfortunately. Sounds good. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Steven Elliott | http://selliott.org | sellio...@austin.rr.com | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
