| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
| Date: | 2020-05-12 20:12:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZJoqNmgv0U2S5bcqnFaNtaCeesWLZxA+3pvU3aD2bsvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I've been trying to reformat table 27.4 (wait events) to fit
> into PDF output, which has caused me to study its contents
> more than I ever had before.
That reminds me that it might be easier to maintain that table if we
broke it up into one table per major category - that is, one table for
lwlocks, one table for IPC, one table for IO, etc. - instead of a
single table with a row-span number that is large and frequently
updated incorrectly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-05-12 20:14:51 | Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-05-12 20:10:18 | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |