Horton

Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date: 2023-03-10T22:39:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 6:58 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... Perhaps something like 0004, which also shows the sort
> of thing that we might consider back-patching to 14 and 15 (next
> revision I'll move that up the front and put it in back-patchable
> form).

I think this is the minimal back-patchable change.  I propose to go
ahead and do that, and then to kick the ideas about latch API changes
into a new thread for the next commitfest.

Commits

  1. Use nanosleep() to implement pg_usleep().

  2. Update obsolete comment about pg_usleep() accuracy.

  3. Fix fractional vacuum_cost_delay.