| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <akapila(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events. |
| Date: | 2021-10-25 18:01:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20211025180122.th5rm5mhg766qd2u@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-10-25 13:39:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> > Since this will cause integer values to have different textual enum value
> > representations in 14 and 15+, do we want to skip two numbers by assigning the
> > next wait event the integer value of WAIT_EVENT_WAL_WRITE incremented by three?
> > Or enum integer reuse not something we guarantee against across major versions?
>
> We require a recompile across major versions. I don't see a reason why
> this particular enum needs more stability than any other one.
+1. That'd end up pushing us to be more conservative about defining new wait
events, which I think would be bad tradeoff.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-10-25 18:03:54 | Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-25 17:39:44 | Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-10-25 18:03:54 | Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-25 17:58:06 | Re: Experimenting with hash tables inside pg_dump |