Horton

Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.

x4mmm@yandex-team.ru

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2020-05-12T17:51:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 

> 12 мая 2020 г., в 20:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> написал(а):
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

I've been coping with cognitive load of these names recently. 2 cents of my impressions:
1. Names are somewhat recognisable and seem to have some meaning. But there is not so much information about them in the Internet. But I did not try to Google them all, just a small subset.
2. Anyway, names should be grepable and googlable, i.e. unique amid identifiers.
3. I think names observed in wait_event and wait_event_type should not duplicate information. i.e. "XidGenLock" is already "LWLock".
4. It's hard to tell the difference between "buffer_content", "buffer_io", "buffer_mapping", "BufferPin", "BufFileRead", "BufFileWrite" and some others. "CLogControlLock" vs "clog"? I'm not sure good DBA can tell the difference without looking up into the code.
I hope some thoughts will be useful.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Commits

  1. Mop-up for wait event naming issues.

  2. Change locktype "speculative token" to "spectoken".

  3. Drop the redundant "Lock" suffix from LWLock wait event names.

  4. Rename assorted LWLock tranches.

  5. Rename SLRU structures and associated LWLocks.

  6. Collect built-in LWLock tranche names statically, not dynamically.