At Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:52:08 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@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" <tgl@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).
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
