* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > 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.
Is there really serious overhead from using latches..? I thought much
of the point of that approach was specifically to minimize overhead...
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
