Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Feb 13, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We could possibly sleep() a bit before retrying,
> >> just to not suck 100% CPU, but that doesn't really *fix* anything ...
> > Well, not only that, but the machine is currently writing to the  
> > postmaster log at the rate of 2-3MB/s. ISTM some kind of sleep  
> > (perhaps growing exponentially to some limit) would be a good idea.
> Well, since the code has always behaved that way and no one noticed
> before, I don't think it's worth anything as complicated as a variable
> delay.  I just stuck a fixed 100msec delay into the accept-failed code
> path.

Seems worth mentioning that bgwriter sleeps 1 sec in case of failure.
(And so does the autovac code I'm currently looking at).

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to