Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken
Дата
Msg-id CA+hUKGL5Nnr7gp_APfqPQX9ow5OzArXFbpPD1ch0=nrXzBt07g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken  (Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:26 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that 4753ef37e0ed undid the work caf626b2c did to support
> sub-millisecond delays for vacuum and autovacuum.
>
> After 4753ef37e0ed, vacuum_delay_point()'s local variable msec is a
> double which, after being passed to WaitLatch() as timeout, which is a
> long, ends up being 0, so we don't end up waiting AFAICT.
>
> When I set [autovacuum_]vacuum_delay_point to 0.5, SHOW will report that
> it is 500us, but WaitLatch() is still getting 0 as timeout.

Given that some of the clunkier underlying kernel primitives have
milliseconds in their interface, I don't think it would be possible to
make a usec-based variant of WaitEventSetWait() that works everywhere.
Could it possibly make sense to do something that accumulates the
error, so if you're using 0.5 then every second vacuum_delay_point()
waits for 1ms?



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Melanie Plageman
Дата:
Сообщение: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Date-time extraneous fields with reserved keywords