Hi Noah,

On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 9:26 AM Noah Misch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> commit 7a39f43 wrote:
> > --- a/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event_names.txt
> > +++ b/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event_names.txt
> > @@ -76,34 +76,35 @@ ABI_compatibility:
> >  # Wait Events - Client
> >  #
> >  # Use this category when a process is waiting to send data to or receive 
> > data
> >  # from the frontend process to which it is connected.  This is never used 
> > for
> >  # a background process, which has no client connection.
> >  #
> >
> >  Section: ClassName - WaitEventClient
> >
> >  CLIENT_READ  "Waiting to read data from the client."
> >  CLIENT_WRITE "Waiting to write data to the client."
> >  GSS_OPEN_SERVER      "Waiting to read data from the client while 
> > establishing a GSSAPI session."
> >  LIBPQWALRECEIVER_CONNECT     "Waiting in WAL receiver to establish 
> > connection to remote server."
> >  LIBPQWALRECEIVER_RECEIVE     "Waiting in WAL receiver to receive data from 
> > remote server."
> >  SSL_OPEN_SERVER      "Waiting for SSL while attempting connection."
> >  WAIT_FOR_STANDBY_CONFIRMATION        "Waiting for WAL to be received and 
> > flushed by the physical standby."
> > -WAIT_FOR_WAL_FLUSH   "Waiting for WAL flush to reach a target LSN on a 
> > primary."
> > +WAIT_FOR_WAL_FLUSH   "Waiting for WAL flush to reach a target LSN on a 
> > primary or standby."
> >  WAIT_FOR_WAL_REPLAY  "Waiting for WAL replay to reach a target LSN on a 
> > standby."
> > +WAIT_FOR_WAL_WRITE   "Waiting for WAL write to reach a target LSN on a 
> > standby."
> >  WAL_SENDER_WAIT_FOR_WAL      "Waiting for WAL to be flushed in WAL sender 
> > process."
> >  WAL_SENDER_WRITE_DATA        "Waiting for any activity when processing 
> > replies from WAL receiver in WAL sender process."
> >
> >  ABI_compatibility:
>
> WaitEventClient is about waiting for a socket to become readable or writable,
> so I think WAIT_FOR_WAL_* events don't fit in its scope.  Sockets are just one
> of the ways to be in WAIT_FOR_WAL_*; other delay sources include local fsync
> and local replay, which could be disk-bound or CPU-bound.
>
> I think WAIT_FOR_WAL_* belong in WaitEventIPC.  In the absence of objections,
> I'll change it that way:

Thanks for raising this. It makes sense to me to move these events to
the WaitEventIPC session. I'm wondering whether this reasoning also
applies to WAIT_FOR_STANDBY_CONFIRMATION.

> --- a/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event_names.txt
> +++ b/src/backend/utils/activity/wait_event_names.txt
> @@ -91,5 +91,2 @@ SSL_OPEN_SERVER       "Waiting for SSL while attempting 
> connection."
>  WAIT_FOR_STANDBY_CONFIRMATION  "Waiting for WAL to be received and flushed 
> by the physical standby."
> -WAIT_FOR_WAL_FLUSH     "Waiting for WAL flush to reach a target LSN on a 
> primary or standby."
> -WAIT_FOR_WAL_REPLAY    "Waiting for WAL replay to reach a target LSN on a 
> standby."
> -WAIT_FOR_WAL_WRITE     "Waiting for WAL write to reach a target LSN on a 
> standby."
>  WAL_SENDER_WAIT_FOR_WAL        "Waiting for WAL to be flushed in WAL sender 
> process."
> @@ -164,2 +161,5 @@ SAFE_SNAPSHOT       "Waiting to obtain a valid snapshot 
> for a <literal>READ ONLY DEFER
>  SYNC_REP       "Waiting for confirmation from a remote server during 
> synchronous replication."
> +WAIT_FOR_WAL_FLUSH     "Waiting for WAL flush to reach a target LSN on a 
> primary or standby."
> +WAIT_FOR_WAL_REPLAY    "Waiting for WAL replay to reach a target LSN on a 
> standby."
> +WAIT_FOR_WAL_WRITE     "Waiting for WAL write to reach a target LSN on a 
> standby."
>  WAL_RECEIVER_EXIT      "Waiting for the WAL receiver to exit."
>
>
> As further rationale, WaitEventClient says "never used for a background
> process".  By xlogwait.c sizing its shmem to include NUM_AUXILIARY_PROCS, it's
> reserving the right to accept calls from background processes.  As a side note
> related to that, the placement of WaitLSNCleanup() in ProcKill() but not
> AuxiliaryProcKill() would also need to change before welcoming auxiliary
> process use.  Perhaps better than adding to AuxiliaryProcKill(), a separate
> on_shmem_exit callback for xlogwait.c would make it harder to miss callers
> needing it.

Good catch! Currently, we have no actual background processes to make
use of the wait-for facility, but things could change in the upcoming
releases. A dedicated on_shmem_exit callback for xlogwait.c also makes
sense to me. I'll prepare a patch for that.

--
Regards,
Xuneng Zhou
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.


Reply via email to