On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts. >>> > >>> > Patch implements that. >>> > >>> > Barring objection, patching today with backpatches. >>> >>> "today" is a little quick, but the patch looks fine. I doubt anyone's >>> going to screech too loud about adding a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call. >> >> I don't quite get asking for agreement, and then not waiting as >> suggested. I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS >> for now, but I think it'd better to replace it with a latch. > > I have waited, so not sure what you mean. Tomorrow is too late.
This gives really little time for any feedback :( > Replacing with a latch wouldn't be backpatchable, IMHO. > I've no problem if you want to work on a deeper fix for future versions. A deeper fix for HEAD proves to not be that complicated. Please see the attached. The other two calls of pg_usleep() in standby.c are waiting with 5ms and 10ms, it is not worth switching them to a latch. -- Michael
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers