| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| Date: | 2017-08-09 17:35:33 |
| Message-ID: | 9676.1502300133@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> This thread is surprising. If we generate the few lines of code being
> in trouble, we don't need any checker script, so I don't see why we'd go
> the route of the checker script instead.
I think generating whatever we can from a single authoritative file
is indeed a good idea. But I had the impression that people also wanted
to enforce a rule about "only one use of each wait event name", which'd
require a checker script, no? (I'm not really convinced that we need
such a rule, fwiw.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-08-09 19:25:56 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-08-09 17:21:33 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-09 17:35:42 | Re: Crash report for some ICU-52 (debian8) COLLATE and work_mem values |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-08-09 17:21:33 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events |