Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption
Date
Msg-id BANLkTinSd2_APiVWTRRT7JoV_EVt-N+yAw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> +              * The caveat about signals invalidating the timeout of
>> +              * WaitLatch() on some platforms can be safely disregarded,
>
> Really?

I'm a bit confused by the phrasing of this comment as well, but it
does seem to me that if all the relevant signal handlers set the
latch, then it ought not to be necessary to break the sleep down into
one-second intervals.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "A.M."
Date:
Subject: Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5957: createdb with description and md5 auth forces to provide password twice