Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLYc7iSh2Eg65HsH49tjPM=AERW-R=2-zg_mORXc+WdeQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:20 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. Do we need a similar wakeup approach for logical replication
> workers in worker.c? Or is it okay that the nap time is 1sec there?

Yeah, I think so.  At least for its idle/nap case (waiting for flush
is also a technically interesting case, but harder, and applies to
non-idle systems so the polling is a little less offensive).



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ronan Dunklau
Date:
Subject: Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
Next
From: Andy Fan
Date:
Subject: Re: Condition pushdown: why (=) is pushed down into join, but BETWEEN or >= is not?