Simon Riggs wrote: > WALSender sleeps even when it might have more WAL to send, it doesn't > check it just unconditionally sleeps. At least WALReceiver loops until > it has no more to receive. I just can't imagine why that's useful > behaviour.
Good catch. That should be fixed. I also note that walsender doesn't respond to signals, while it's sending a large batch. That's analogous to the issue that was addressed recently in the archiver process. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers