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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZJoqNmgv0U2S5bcqnFaNtaCeesWLZxA+3pvU3aD2bsvA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I've been trying to reformat table 27.4 (wait events) to fit
> into PDF output, which has caused me to study its contents
> more than I ever had before.

That reminds me that it might be easier to maintain that table if we
broke it up into one table per major category - that is, one table for
lwlocks, one table for IPC, one table for IO, etc. - instead of a
single table with a row-span number that is large and frequently
updated incorrectly.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql:Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES)