Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 19:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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.
> If we add in extensions and lwlocks, will they show up as well?
Yeah, I was just looking into that. Part of the reason for the inconsistency is that we've exposed names that are passed to, eg, SimpleLruInit that previously were strictly internal debugging identifiers, so that approximately zero thought was put into them.
We're going to have to document SimpleLruInit and similar functions along the lines of "The name you give here will be user-visible as a wait event. Choose it with an eye to consistency with existing wait event names, and add it to the user-facing documentation." But that requirement isn't something I just invented, it was effectively created by whoever implemented things this way.
Said user-facing documentation largely fails to explain that the set of wait events can be enlarged by extensions; that needs to be fixed, too.
There isn't a lot we can do to force extensions to pick consistent names, but on the other hand we won't be documenting such names anyway, so for my immediate purposes it doesn't matter ;-)
I think we need to plan the namespace with extensions in mind.
There are now dozens; some of them even help you view wait events...
We don't want the equivalent of the Dewey decimal system: 300 categories of Exaggeration and one small corner for Science.
