Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>>> We could possibly sleep() a bit before retrying,
>>>> just to not suck 100% CPU, but that doesn't really *fix* anything ...
>>>>
>>> Well, not only that, but the machine is currently writing to the
>>> postmaster log at the rate of 2-3MB/s. ISTM some kind of sleep
>>> (perhaps growing exponentially to some limit) would be a good idea.
>>>
>> Well, since the code has always behaved that way and no one noticed
>> before, I don't think it's worth anything as complicated as a variable
>> delay. I just stuck a fixed 100msec delay into the accept-failed code
>> path.
>>
>
> Seems worth mentioning that bgwriter sleeps 1 sec in case of failure.
> (And so does the autovac code I'm currently looking at).
>
>
There is probably a good case for a shorter delay in postmaster, though.
cheers
andrew