| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
| Date: | 2020-05-12 21:17:09 |
| Message-ID: | 7391.1589318229@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2020-05-12 21:32:45 | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-05-12 21:16:29 | Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft |