| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| Date: | 2017-08-10 00:52:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqT+mq6YaTRuS1o4qHS9KG8z0cBxawqS=MfS9ebwhwmjRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think generating whatever we can from a single authoritative file
>> is indeed a good idea.
>
> Yay.
Indeed.
>> But I had the impression that people also wanted to enforce a rule
>> about "only one use of each wait event name", which'd require a
>> checker script, no? (I'm not really convinced that we need such a
>> rule, fwiw.)
>
> I'm not convinced of that, either. Of the possible problems in the
> area, that seems the lesser one.
With a minimal maintenance effort we can be careful enough. I think
that a comment for example in pgstat.c about the usage uniqueness
would be an adapted answer.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-10 07:33:30 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-09 21:03:51 | pgsql: Fix handling of container types in find_composite_type_dependenc |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-08-10 01:16:36 | Re: Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-08-10 00:48:14 | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |