Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
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>
Date: 2024-01-02T21:45:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
Commits
-
Cross-check lists of predefined LWLocks.
- 5b1b9bce8449 17.0 landed
-
Remove Lock suffix from WALSummarizerLock in wait_event_names.txt
- 371b07e89449 17.0 landed
-
Drop the redundant "Lock" suffix from LWLock wait event names.
- 14a910109126 13.0 cited