Message-ID: <700b3fb8-37b9-cec5-1ee2-3a490568651e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 10:18:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <2e649ed7-6c66-5d6a-16d4-5d5367d40e69@gmail.com>
 <ZEX0QT6vROUONVRH@paquier.xyz>
 <ff27ae4a-edaa-7766-0b43-c3a7b14fca84@gmail.com>
 <ZEdh2+46GuhCqW6b@paquier.xyz>
 <e8a1e3c2-26e5-8a7a-f821-eee92ab0c8e2@gmail.com>
 <64fc361e-f4ed-45eb-0cfb-c8110872530d@gmail.com>
 <ZEoSlv9HxURD8Uxw@paquier.xyz>
 <e59598e3-3630-e90d-8985-1833f8d5aede@gmail.com>
 <ZE8A8IIJ5GXfIKv8@paquier.xyz>
 <124bdcea-bdc8-e3d2-2357-0c6a857bc557@gmail.com>
 <ZFW6FTMIH00502RU@paquier.xyz>
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZFW6FTMIH00502RU@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/700b3fb8-37b9-cec5-1ee2-3a490568651e%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 5/6/23 4:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 08:39:49AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> On 5/1/23 1:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like it. First, it does break the "Note" ordering as compare
>> to the current documentation. That's not a big deal though.
>>
>> Secondly, what If we need to add some note(s) in the future for
>> another wait class? Having all the notes after all the tables are
>> generated would sound weird to me.
> 
> Appending these notes at the end of all the tables does not strike me
> as a big dea, TBH.  But, well, my sole opinion is not the final choice
> either.  For now, I am mostly tempted to keep the generation script as
> minimalistic as possible.
> 

I agree that's not a big deal and I'm not against having these notes at the end
of all the tables.

>> We could discuss another approach for the "Note" part if there is a
>> need to add one for an existing/new wait class though.
> 

means, that was more a NIT comment from my side.

> Documenting what's expected from the wait event classes is critical in
> the .txt file as that's what developers are going to look at when
> adding a new wait event.  Adding them in the header is less appealing
> to me considering that is it now generated, and the docs provide a lot
> of explanation as well.
> 

Your argument that the header is now generated makes me change my mind: I
know think that having the comments in the .txt file is enough.

>>> This has as extra consequence to require a change in
>>> wait_event.h so as PG_WAIT_BUFFER_PIN is renamed to PG_WAIT_BUFFERPIN,
>>> equally fine by me.  Logically, this rename should be done in a patch
>>> of its own, for clarity.
>>
>> Yes, I can look at it.
>> [...]
>> Agree, I'll look at this.
> 
> Thanks!

Please find the dedicated patch proposal in [1].

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c6f35117-4b20-4c78-1df5-d3056010dcf5%40gmail.com

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com