From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: evtcache: EventTriggerCache vs Event Trigger Cache |
Date: | 2023-05-04 12:09:12 |
Message-ID: | 3195699.1683202152@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> When reading a memory contexts log I realized that we have this:
> LOG: level: 2; EventTriggerCache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7928 free (4 chunks); 264 used
> LOG: level: 3; Event Trigger Cache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 2616 free (0 chunks); 5576 used
> The reason is that BuildEventTriggerCache sets up a context "EventTriggerCache"
> which house a hash named "Event Trigger Cache" which in turn creates a context
> with the table name. I think it makes sense that these share the same name,
> but I think it would be less confusing if they also shared the same spelling
> whitespace-wise. Any reason to not rename the hash EventTriggerCache to make
> the logging a tiny bit easier to read and grep?
Hmm, I'm kinda -1 on them having the same name visible in the
contexts dump --- that seems very confusing. How about naming
the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-05-04 12:17:52 | Re: "CREATE RULE ... ON SELECT": redundant? |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2023-05-04 11:38:26 | evtcache: EventTriggerCache vs Event Trigger Cache |