On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 07:24:28PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > I was misreading this as something like "any other blocking than > the blocking in WalSndLoop()". Ok, I have no more comments on > the patch.
Patch looks rather sane to me at quick glance. I can see that WAL senders are now not stuck at 100% CPU per process when sitting idle, for both physical and logical replication. Thanks. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
