On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the primary goal here is to reduce power consumption, another option > would be to keep the regular wake-ups most of the time but have some > mechanism for putting the process to sleep until wakened when no activity > happens for a certain period of time - say, 10 cycles. I'm not at all sure > that's better, but it would be less of a change to the existing behavior. Now we have them, latches seem the best approach because they (mostly) avoid heuristics. This proposal works same or better for async transactions. The only difference is how bulk write operations are handled. As long as we wake WALWriter before wal_buffers fills then we'll be good. Wakeup once per wal buffer is too much. I agree we should measure this to check how frequently wakeups are required for bulk ops. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
