On Wednesday, June 30, 2021, Alvaro Herrera <
alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2021-Jun-30, David G. Johnston wrote:
> We forget to check for interrupts before sleeping in an otherwise busy-wait
> loop. We corrected the oversight.
(It's not a busy-wait loop, just a sleep, unless I misunderstand.)
I was just repeating the code comment:
|
| | * and retry from the archive, but if it hasn't been long |
| | * since last attempt, sleep wal_retrieve_retry_interval |
| | * milliseconds to avoid busy-waiting. |
Which is why I went with “an otherwise busy-wait loop” as a rephrasing of “avoid busy-waiting”.
I concur that this seems back-patch worthy.
David J.
