Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process

On 9 August 2011 23:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Now that I've got the WaitLatch code fully swapped into my head,
> I'm thinking of pushing on to review/commit this patch of Peter's.

Thanks for giving this your attention. I had already planned to
produce a new revision this weekend, so I'd appreciate it if you could
hold off until Sunday or Monday.

> I did not see any objections to such a change.  I think we should pull
> out this aspect and commit it to 9.1 as well as HEAD.  That will provide
> one less gotcha for anyone who develops against the 9.1 latch code and
> later needs to port to 9.2.

That is a good point. I'm aware that someone already made the mistake
of giving the value of timeout as milliseconds rather than
microseconds at one point, so this seems to be a fertile source of
confusion.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services