Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 15:45:44 -0600
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Subject: Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt
Message-ID: <20240102214544.GA1063425@nathanxps13>
References: <20240102173120.GA1061678@nathanxps13>
 <CA+TgmoYRhhL12iOcNKv6f__iZMk1_BPgbASFykPazhr_bwk0=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYRhhL12iOcNKv6f__iZMk1_BPgbASFykPazhr_bwk0=w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240102214544.GA1063425%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 01:13:16PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we're supposed to omit the "Lock" suffix in wait_event_names.txt.
> 
> Ugh, sorry. But also, why in the world?

That seems to date back to commit 14a9101.  I can agree that the suffix is
somewhat redundant since these are already marked as type "LWLock", but
I'll admit I've been surprised by this before, too.  IMHO it makes this
proposed test more important because you can't just grep for a different
lock to find all the places you need to update.

> - Check in both directions instead of just one?
> 
> - Verify ordering?

To do those things, I'd probably move the test to one of the scripts that
generates the documentation or header file (pg_wait_events doesn't tell us
whether a lock is predefined or what order it's listed in).  That'd cause
failures at build time instead of during testing, which might be kind of
nice, too.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com