Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 11:07:00 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Message-ID: <202601051404.qkpher3pinlm@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <12236.1767610447@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202601051404.qkpher3pinlm%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Jan-05, Antonin Houska wrote:

> Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Probably it is because
> > > 100000L,    /* XXX Tune the delay. */
> > 
> > 100 seconds is clearly too much.
> 
> I confused milliseconds with microseconds. Since I was only running the code
> with debugger, the long delays didn't appear to be a problem.
> 
> Instead of tuning the timeout, I'm thinking of introducing a condition
> variable that signals WAL flushing.

I think there is a patch that adds support for this in the queue already
-- see this message:
https://postgr.es/m/CAPpHfds-KiZRuCruc0jHxLSxLqzKcHJGwOFFA0b_RgaJvtUOEQ@mail.gmail.com

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"¿Qué importan los años?  Lo que realmente importa es comprobar que
a fin de cuentas la mejor edad de la vida es estar vivo"  (Mafalda)