On 7/29/21, 12:59 AM, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > At Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:52:08 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote in >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 08:28:12PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> > On 7/28/21, 11:32 AM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> I follow the idea of using WaitLatch to ensure that the delays are >> >> interruptible by postmaster signals, but even that isn't worth a >> >> lot given the expected use of these things. I don't see a need to >> >> expend any extra effort on wait-reporting. >> > >> > +1. The proposed patch doesn't make the delay visibility any worse >> > than what's already there. >> >> Agreed to just drop the patch (my opinion about this patch is >> unchanged). Not to mention that wait events are not available at SQL >> level at this stage yet. > > I'm +1 to not adding wait event stuff at all. So the only advantage > this patch would offer is interruptivity. I vote +-0.0 for adding that > interruptivity (+1.0 from the previous opinion of mine:p).
I'm still in favor of moving to WaitLatch() for pre/post_auth_delay, but I don't think we should worry about the wait reporting stuff. The patch doesn't add a tremendous amount of complexity, it improves the behavior on postmaster crashes, and it follows the best practice described in pgsleep.c of using WaitLatch() for long sleeps. Nathan
