Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:35:21 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Subject: Re: Flush some statistics within running transactions
Message-ID: <aXmuKZz8sXPLCumT@paquier.xyz>
References: <aW4gwqVybB4INCvu@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAA5RZ0s6FkEHFdgKf8J6vueZGwsH+08LvV0YPBXa4Dw_8QgtTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aXCroXBLiUpxk0Ap@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <aXFpAisDKy6g_cKx@paquier.xyz>
 <CAA5RZ0sQxAu6bU8wTgvs+aTSvhBcziH9jCJ27aS1hzKsm2kmTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwGBkPEK=NpLuk1HSmccu6OA2FYqkkGcA-Hb3WLs6dX=cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aXHVC6NxERhcThZV@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAHGQGwHttst8tv_WWYNoGGfL1UAq4kiy6dpFXoxEkJwHMS9FtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aXJUK90lKXw3wrZn@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <aXcQ0Bdff5OsUDWY@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gpZddzprOttsUEpV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aXcQ0Bdff5OsUDWY@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aXmuKZz8sXPLCumT%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--gpZddzprOttsUEpV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 06:59:28AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> The attached, to apply on top of 0001, fix the issue. However it handles =
only the
> WaitLatch in ProcSleep() case and I start to have concern about the other=
s WaitLatch()
> that would/could be "woken up" every 1s.

Hmm, I indeed suspect that is may not be the only one..  This is much bigge=
r.

> Using disable_timeout() and enable_timeout_after() in WaitEventSetWait() =
does not
> look like a great answer to this concern, so I wonder if we should use a =
larger
> flush frequency instead (as proposed up-thread), thoughts?=20

Only a larger frequency is not the correct answer here.  It would just
reduce the frequency of the extra lock wait messages for one: these
should never appear more than necessary.  And how about for example
extension code?
--
Michael

--gpZddzprOttsUEpV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Ns/h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gpZddzprOttsUEpV--