Horton

Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-14T20:03:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I submit that at least part of the problem is precisely one of crappy
> naming.  I didn't know what OldSerXidLock did either, until yesterday
> when I dug into the code to find out.  If it's named something like
> "SerialSLRULock", then at least somebody who has heard of SLRUs will
> have an idea of what is indicated.  And we are exposing the notion
> of SLRUs pretty prominently in the monitoring docs as of v13, so that's
> not an unreasonable presumption.

To the extent that exposing some of this information causes us to
think more carefully about the naming, I think that's all to the good.
I don't expect such measures to solve all of our problems in this
area, but the idea that we can choose names with no consideration to
whether anybody can understand what they mean is wrong even when the
audience is only developers.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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.