At Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:52:08 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@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" <t...@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
