Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >> It turns out that I hate the fact that the Wait Event Name column is
> >> effectively in a random order. If a user sees a message, and goes to
> >> look up the value in the wait_event description table, they either
> >> have to search with their browser/PDF viewer, or scan down the list
> >> looking for the item they're looking for, not knowing how far down it
> >> will be. The same goes for wait event type.

> Hmm, I'm not sure this is a good idea. I don't think it's crazy to
> report the locks in the order they are defined in the source code;
> many people will be familiar with that order, and it might make the
> list easier to maintain. On the other hand, I'm also not sure this is
> a bad idea. Alphabetical order is a widely-used standard. So, I'm
> going to abstain from any strong position here and ask what other
> people think of Thom's proposed change.

I think using implementation order is crazy. +1 for alphabetical. If
this really makes devs' lives more difficult (and I disagree that it
does), let's reorder the items in the source code too.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services