At Fri, 2 Jul 2021 10:27:21 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:01:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Dunno ... I cannot recall ever having had that as a debugging requirement > > in a couple of decades worth of PG bug-chasing. If the postmaster is > > dying, you generally want to deal with that before bothering with child > > processes. Moreover, child processes that don't go awy when the > > postmaster does are a very nasty problem, because they could screw up > > subsequent debugging work. > > At the same time, nobody has really complained about this being an > issue for developer options. I would tend to wait for more opinions > before doing anything with the auth_delay GUCs.
I'm not sure the current behavior is especially useful for debugging, however, I don't think it is especially useful that children immediately respond to postmaster's death while the debug-delays, because anyway children don't respond while debugging (until the control (or code-pointer) reaches to the point of checking postmaster's death), and the delays must be very short even if someone abuses it on production systems. On the other hand, there could be a discussion as a convention that any user-definable sleep requires to respond to signals, maybe as Thomas mentioned. So, I don't object either way we will go. But if we don't change the behavior we instead would need a comment that explains the reason for the pg_usleep. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center