On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Two things I forgot in this patch: - documentation for the new wait event - the string for the wait event or this would show up as "???" in pg_stat_activity. There are no default clauses in the pgstat_get_wait_* routines so my compiler is actually complaining... -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers