Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5 May 2011 22:22, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What that really means is that any WaitOnLatch call with a finite
>> timeout ought to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Ideally, we want them
>> all to be waiting for latch release and nothing else. I'm concerned
>> that we're going to be moving towards some intermediate state where we
>> have WaitOnLatch calls with very long timeouts, because the longer the
>> timeout, the worse the problem gets on platforms that have the problem.
>> If you have say a 1-minute timeout, it's not difficult to believe that
>> you'll basically never wake up because of random signals resetting the
>> timeout.
> Unless all signal handlers for signals that we expect call SetLatch()
> anyway, as in this case.
It's signals that we don't expect that I'm a bit worried about here.
In any case, the bottom line is that having a timeout on WaitOnLatch
is a kludge, and we should try to avoid it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
