On 7/28/21, 11:32 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm detecting a certain amount of lily-gilding here. Neither of these
> delays are meant for anything except debugging purposes, and nobody as
> far as I've heard has ever expressed great concern about identifying
> which process they need to attach to for that purpose. So I think it
> is a *complete* waste of time to add any cycles to connection startup
> to make these delays more visible.
>
> 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.
Nathan