| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 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: | 2021-07-29 00:52:08 |
| Message-ID: | YQH7uLYwTvNC2xyL@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 08:28:12PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 7/28/21, 11:32 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-29 00:57:30 | Re: Emit namespace in post-copy output |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-07-29 00:25:30 | Re: Out-of-memory error reports in libpq |