> On Mar 19, 2025, at 15:06, Christophe Pettus <x...@thebuild.com> wrote: > > From an (admittedly somewhat naïve) look at the code, it appears that having > it honor the cost delay wouldn't introduce excessive blocking, as long as the > delay wasn't implemented at a really dumb place. Specifically, it looks like doing the cost-based wait immediately after backend/storage/freespace/freespace.c:898 (in HEAD) wouldn't be in a critical section, although I could be totally in the weeds on this.
