Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Date
Msg-id 14769.1291699334@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Maybe we should have a single tunable for processes that just sleep
> waiting for events or postmaster death.  For example pgstats has a
> hardcoded 2 seconds, and the archiver process has a hardcoded value too
> AFAICS.

That would make sense once we get to the point where for all of those
processes, the sleep delay *only* affects the time to notice postmaster
death.  Right now I think there are still several other behaviors mixed
in with that, and not all of them necessarily want the same response
time.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Rethinking hint bits WAS: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead