Greetings, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:07:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:48 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> Thanks for that. Attached is just a rebased version with a commit > >> message added. If there aren't any other concerns, I'll commit this in > >> the next few days and back-patch it. When it comes to 12 and older, > >> does anyone want to opine about the wait event to use? I was thinking > >> PG_WAIT_TIMEOUT or WAIT_EVENT_PG_SLEEP ... > > > > I'm not sure if we should back-patch this, but I think if you do you > > should just add a wait event, rather than using a generic one. > > I would not back-patch that either, as this is an improvement of the > current state. I agree that this had better introduce a new wait > event. Even if this stuff gets backpatched, you won't introduce an > ABI incompatibility with a new event as long as you add the new event > at the end of the existing enum lists, but let's keep the wait events > ordered on HEAD.
Adding CFI's in places that really should have them is something we certainly have back-patched in the past, and that's just 'an improvement of the current state' too, so I don't quite follow the argument being made here that this shouldn't be back-patched. I don't have any problem with adding into the older releases, at the end of the existing lists, the same wait event that exists in 13+ for this already. Any other thoughts on this, particularly about back-patching or not..? Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature