| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| 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 20:28:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkGBZp1Gj+Q5GGThTzUq6v9zEYKFx8w4kx_R1cOVU93Kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm not sure what our stance is on version-to-version consistency
> of these names, but I'd like to think that we are not stuck for
> all time with the results of these random coin tosses.
These names are fundamentally implementation details, and
implementation details are subject to change without too much warning.
I think it's okay to change the names for consistency along the lines
you propose. ISTM that it's worth going to a little bit of effort to
preserve any existing names. But not too much.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-05-12 20:38:09 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-05-12 20:27:26 | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |