On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 06:59:28AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> The attached, to apply on top of 0001, fix the issue. However it handles only the
> WaitLatch in ProcSleep() case and I start to have concern about the others WaitLatch()
> that would/could be "woken up" every 1s.
Hmm, I indeed suspect that is may not be the only one.. This is much bigger.
> Using disable_timeout() and enable_timeout_after() in WaitEventSetWait() does not
> look like a great answer to this concern, so I wonder if we should use a larger
> flush frequency instead (as proposed up-thread), thoughts?
Only a larger frequency is not the correct answer here. It would just
reduce the frequency of the extra lock wait messages for one: these
should never appear more than necessary. And how about for example
extension code?
--
Michael
