Re: Rethink the wait event names for postgres_fdw, dblink and etc

On 2023-10-05 10:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 05:19:40PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I am lacking a bit of time now, but I have applied the bits for
>> test_shm_mq and worker_spi.  Note that I have not added tests for
>> test_shm_mq as it may be possible that the two events (for the
>> bgworker startup and for a message to be queued) are never reached
>> depending on the timing.  I'll handle the rest tomorrow, with likely
>> some adjustments to the tests.  (I may as well just remove them, this
>> API is already covered by worker_spi.)
> 
> After sleeping on it, I've taken the decision to remove the tests.  As
> far as I have tested, this was stable, but this does not really
> improve the test coverage as WaitEventExtensionNew() is covered in
> worker_spi.  I have done tweaks to the docs and the variable names,
> and applied that into its own commit.
> 
> Note as well that the docs of dblink were wrong for DblinkGetConnect:
> the wait event could be seen in other functions than dblink() and
> dblink_exec().

Thanks for modifying and committing. I agree your comments.

Regards,
-- 
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION