On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:21:23PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/02/17 18:48, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Actually, I have some questions: >> 1) Should a new wait event be added in recoveryPausesHere()? That >> would be IMO useful. > > Yes, it's useful, I think. But it's better to implement that > as a separate patch.
No problem for me. >> 2) Perhaps those two points should be replaced with WaitLatch(), where >> we would use the new wait events introduced? > > For what? Maybe it should, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. I don't have more to offer than signal handling consistency for both without relying on pg_usleep()'s behavior depending on the platform, and power consumption. For the recovery pause, the second argument may not be worth carrying, but we never had this argument for the archiving wait, did we? For both, on top of it you don't need to worry about concurrent issues with the wait events attached around. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
