On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 4:40 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> I would suggest changing "attach from a debugger" to "attaching with a
> debugger."
Thanks. IMO, the following looks better:
<entry>Waiting on connection startup before authentication to allow
attaching a debugger to the process.</entry>
<entry>Waiting on connection startup after authentication to allow
attaching a debugger to the process.</entry>
> IIUC you want to use the same set of flags as PostAuthDelay for
> PreAuthDelay, but the stated reason in this comment for leaving out
> WL_LATCH_SET suggests otherwise. It's not clear to me why the latch
> possibly pointing to a shared latch in the future is an issue. Should
> this instead say that we leave out WL_LATCH_SET for consistency with
> PostAuthDelay?
If WL_LATCH_SET is used for PostAuthDelay, the waiting doesn't happen
because the MyLatch which is a shared latch would be set by
SwitchToSharedLatch. More details at [1].
If WL_LATCH_SET is used for PreAuthDelay, actually there's no problem
because MyLatch is still not initialized properly in BackendInitialize
when waiting for PreAuthDelay, it still points to local latch, but
later gets pointed to shared latch and gets set SwitchToSharedLatch.
But relying on MyLatch there seems to me somewhat relying on an
uninitialized variable. More details at [1].
For PreAuthDelay, with the comment I wanted to say that the MyLatch is
not the correct one we would want to wait for. Since there is no
problem in using it there, I changed the comment to following:
/*
* Let's not use WL_LATCH_SET for PreAuthDelay to be consistent with
* PostAuthDelay.
*/
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALj2ACVF8AZi1bK8oH-Qoz3tYVpqFuzxcDRPdF-3p5BvF6GTxA%40mail.gmail.com
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
