Hi,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 09:59:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 05:57:02PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Thanks for looking at it!
> > Oh right, the comment is wrong, re-worded in v2 attached.
>
> I've added a couple of fake events in my txt file, and this results in
> an ordering of the wait events in the docs while the backpatched wait
> events are added at the end of the enums, based on their order in the
> txt file.
Thanks for testing!
> # When adding a new wait event, make sure it is placed in the appropriate
> -# ClassName section.
> +# ClassName section. If the wait event is backpatched from master to a version
> +# >= 17 then put it under a "Backpatch:" delimiter at the end of the related
> +# ClassName section (on the non master branches) or at its natural position on
> +# the master branch.
> +# Ensure that the backpatch regions are always empty on the master branch.
>
> I'd recommend to not mention a version number at all, as this would
> need a manual refresh each time a new stable branch is forked.
I'm not sure as v2 used the "version >= 17" wording which I think would not need
manual refresh each time a new stable branch is forked.
But to avoid any doubt, I'm following your recommendation in v3 attached (then
only mentioning the "master branch" and "any other branch").
> Your solution is simpler than what I finished in mind when looking at
> the code yesterday, with the addition of a second array that's pushed
> to be at the end of the "sorted" lines ordered by the second column.
> That does the job.
Yeah.
> (Note that I'll go silent for some time; I'll handle this thread when
> I get back as this is not urgent.)
Right and enjoy!
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
