From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:54:48 -0400
Message-ID: <5598.1589338488@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMsGm5ci68RWekX+JCA9QJzoqBk0Q08rJa2akv0eR1mvpURA2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200512202726.GA31125@alvherre.pgsql>
<9871.1589321468@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAMsGm5ci68RWekX+JCA9QJzoqBk0Q08rJa2akv0eR1mvpURA2w@mail.gmail.com>
Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> writes:
> ... I'm wondering because it seems
> like it might be helpful to have a system view which gives all the wait
> event types, names, and descriptions. Maybe even add a column for which
> extension (or core) it came from. The documentation could then just explain
> the general situation and point people at the system view to see exactly
> which wait types exist in their system.
There's certainly an argument for doing things like that, but I think it'd
be a net negative in terms of quality and consistency of documentation.
We'd basically be deciding those are non-goals.
Of course, ripping out table 27.4 altogether would be a simple solution
to the formatting problem I started with ;-). But it doesn't really
seem like the answer we want.
> Of course if the names get passed in ad hoc then such a view could only
> show the types that happen to have been created up to the moment it is
> queried, which would defeat the purpose.
Yes, exactly.
I don't actually understand why the LWLock tranche mechanism is designed
the way it is. It seems to be intended to support different backends
having different sets of LWLocks, but I fail to see why that's a good idea,
or even useful at all. In any case, dynamically-created LWLocks are
clearly out of scope for the documentation. The problem that I'm trying
to deal with right now is that even LWLocks that are hard-wired into the
backend code are difficult to enumerate. That wasn't a problem before
we decided we needed to expose them all to user view; but now it is.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, isaac.morland@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
In-Reply-To: <5598.1589338488@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox