| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |
| Date: | 2016-09-21 14:31:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobk=Om=bkeuhN-e5DCsU8OcF0EzyOvnptcKmdkq6=utRw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> No, that's not what I want to do. I think we should categorize the
>> events administratively by their main purpose, rather than
>> technologically by what we're waiting for.
>
> So we'd just have three class IDs instead of one? Well why not.
Yeah, or, I mean, it doesn't have to be three precisely, but I'd like
to try to avoid exposing the users to the fact that we have an
internal data structure called a WaitEventSet and instead classify by
function.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-09-21 14:50:13 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-21 14:23:30 | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |