Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of vie jul 15 09:55:40 -0400 2011:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the primary goal here is to reduce power consumption, another option
> > would be to keep the regular wake-ups most of the time but have some
> > mechanism for putting the process to sleep until wakened when no activity
> > happens for a certain period of time - say, 10 cycles. I'm not at all sure
> > that's better, but it would be less of a change to the existing behavior.
>
> Now we have them, latches seem the best approach because they (mostly)
> avoid heuristics.
Yeah, there's no reason for "less of a change" to be a criterion to
determine the best way forward. The new tech is clearly a better
solution overall, so lets just get rid of the cruft.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
