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: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-12T21:17:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Said user-facing documentation largely fails to explain that the
>> set of wait events can be enlarged by extensions; that needs to
>> be fixed, too.

> Is that true? How can they do that? I thought they were stuck with
> PG_WAIT_EXTENSION.

Extensions can definitely add new LWLock tranches, and thereby
enlarge the set of names in that category.  I haven't figured out
whether there are other avenues.

			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.