Tom Lane wrote: > In general, we might want to consider replacing long sleep intervals > with WaitLatch operations. I thought for a bit about trying to turn > pg_usleep itself into a WaitLatch call; but it's also used in frontend > code where that wouldn't work, and anyway it's not clear this would be > a good thing for short sleeps.
How about having a #ifdef !FRONTEND code path that uses the latch, and sleep otherwise? And maybe use plain sleep for short sleeps in the backend also, to avoid the latch overhead. I notice we already have three implementations of pg_usleep. -- Álvaro Herrera 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
