| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Verify predefined LWLocks tranches have entries in wait_event_names.txt |
| Date: | 2025-07-21 23:02:52 |
| Message-ID: | aH7HHCsa2eoDozIg@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 03:28:14PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 03:20:55PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Can we add a note to wait_event_names.txt about the required
>> ordering/matching of the non-predefined LWLocks? Otherwise, these patches
>> look pretty good to me.
>
> Something else I just thought of: could we remove the list of built-in
> tranches in lwlock.h with some macro magic that generates it from
> lwlocktranchelist.h, too?
Ah, you mean removing the need to have to maintain BuiltinTrancheIds.
This structure depends on NUM_INDIVIDUAL_LWLOCKS for the start value.
Not really an objection per-se, but trying to automate everything may
impact the readability of this area of the code.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-07-21 23:07:42 | Re: track generic and custom plans in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-21 22:56:15 | Re: Proposal: QUALIFY clause |