Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Date: 2020-05-12 20:27:26
Message-ID: 20200512202726.GA31125@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-May-12, Robert Haas wrote:

> 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.

(Didn't we have a patch to generate the table programmatically?)

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-05-12 20:28:54 Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-05-12 20:26:34 Re: refactoring basebackup.c