| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use WaitLatch for {pre, post}_auth_delay instead of pg_usleep |
| Date: | 2021-07-28 20:28:12 |
| Message-ID: | AD0B46DD-AD96-4D5C-85F5-1B987D86D83E@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/28/21, 11:32 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm detecting a certain amount of lily-gilding here. Neither of these
> delays are meant for anything except debugging purposes, and nobody as
> far as I've heard has ever expressed great concern about identifying
> which process they need to attach to for that purpose. So I think it
> is a *complete* waste of time to add any cycles to connection startup
> to make these delays more visible.
>
> 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.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-07-28 20:45:07 | Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2021-07-28 20:10:53 | Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target |