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 http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ 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
