On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit >> message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in >> the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older, >> does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use? I was thinking >> PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ... > > I'm not sure if we should back-patch this, but I think if you do you > should just add a wait event, rather than using a generic one.
I would not back-patch that either, as this is an improvement of the current state. I agree that this had better introduce a new wait event. Even if this stuff gets backpatched, you won't introduce an ABI incompatibility with a new event as long as you add the new event at the end of the existing enum lists, but let's keep the wait events ordered on HEAD. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
