| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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 20:08:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoamC9uiqfOxe_FEb_eewU81w+AenuRiEJetqqPP8jvC-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> There are a lot of other things that seem inconsistent, but I'm not sure
> how much patience people would have for judgment-call renamings. An
> example is that "ProcSignalBarrier" is under IO, but why? Shouldn't it
> be reclassified as IPC?
Hmm, that seems like a goof.
> Other than that, *almost* all the IO events
> are named SomethingRead, SomethingWrite, or SomethingSync, which
> makes sense to me ... should we insist they all follow that pattern?
Maybe, but sometimes module X does more than one kind of
read/write/sync, and I'm not necessarily keen on merging things
together. The whole point of this is to be able to tell where you're
stuck in the code, and the more you merge related things together, the
less you can actually tell that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-05-12 20:10:18 | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-12 20:00:46 | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |