Alvaro Herrera wrote:
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).


There is probably a good case for a shorter delay in postmaster, though.

cheers

andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to