Horton

Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-12T20:54:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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

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.