| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
| Date: | 2020-05-12 15:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | CADUqk8WTKZi8WBF7oJh-KrDLkEcPgH2HQ+AenFTHO1VCGRYeNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> My inclination is to propose that we settle on the first style
> shown above, which is the majority case now, and rename the
> other events to fit that. As long as we're breaking compatibility
> anyway, I'd also like to shorten one or two of the very longest
> names, because they're just giving me fits in fixing the PDF
> rendering. (They would make a mess of the display of
> pg_stat_activity, too, anytime they come up in the field.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
+1
--
Jonah H. Harris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2020-05-12 15:37:46 | Re: COPY, lock release and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-12 15:16:10 | Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |