Greetings,
* Michael Paquier (michael@paquier.xyz) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@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.
Adding CFI's in places that really should have them is something we
certainly have back-patched in the past, and that's just 'an improvement
of the current state' too, so I don't quite follow the argument being
made here that this shouldn't be back-patched.
I don't have any problem with adding into the older releases, at the end
of the existing lists, the same wait event that exists in 13+ for this
already.
Any other thoughts on this, particularly about back-patching or not..?
Thanks,
Stephen
