Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Date
Msg-id 31271.1589307094@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  ("Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>)
Responses Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> writes:
> 3. I think names observed in wait_event and wait_event_type should not duplicate information. i.e. "XidGenLock" is
already"LWLock". 

Yeah, I'd been wondering about that too: we could strip the "Lock" suffix
from all the names in the LWLock category, and make pg_stat_activity
output a bit narrower.

There are a lot of other things that seem inconsistent, but I'm not sure
how much patience people would have for judgment-call renamings.  An
example is that "ProcSignalBarrier" is under IO, but why?  Shouldn't it
be reclassified as IPC?  Other than that, *almost* all the IO events
are named SomethingRead, SomethingWrite, or SomethingSync, which
makes sense to me ... should we insist they all follow that pattern?

Anyway, I was just throwing this idea out to see if there would be
howls of "you can't rename anything" anguish.  Since there haven't
been so far, I'll spend a bit more time and try to create a concrete
list of possible changes.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Show opclass and opfamily related information in psql
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)