From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZJoqNmgv0U2S5bcqnFaNtaCeesWLZxA+3pvU3aD2bsvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <21247.1589296570@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZJoqNmgv0U2S5bcqnFaNtaCeesWLZxA+3pvU3aD2bsvA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 12 May 2020 16:12:37 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6404.1589316879.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 16:54:39 -0400
Message-ID: <6405.1589316879@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I've been trying to reformat table 27.4 (wait events) to fit
>> into PDF output, which has caused me to study its contents
>> more than I ever had before.

> That reminds me that it might be easier to maintain that table if we
> broke it up into one table per major category - that is, one table for
> lwlocks, one table for IPC, one table for IO, etc. - instead of a
> single table with a row-span number that is large and frequently
> updated incorrectly.

Yeah, see my last attempt at

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26961.1589260206%40sss.pgh.pa.us

I'm probably going to go with that, but as given that patch conflicts
with my other pending patch to change the catalog description tables,
so I want to push that other one first and then clean up the wait-
event one.  In the meantime, I'm going to look at these naming issues,
which will also be changing that patch ...

			regards, tom lane