On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 08:39:49AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote: > On 5/1/23 1:59 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > I'm not sure I like it. First, it does break the "Note" ordering as compare > to the current documentation. That's not a big deal though. > > Secondly, what If we need to add some note(s) in the future for > another wait class? Having all the notes after all the tables are > generated would sound weird to me.
Appending these notes at the end of all the tables does not strike me as a big dea, TBH. But, well, my sole opinion is not the final choice either. For now, I am mostly tempted to keep the generation script as minimalistic as possible. > We could discuss another approach for the "Note" part if there is a > need to add one for an existing/new wait class though. Documenting what's expected from the wait event classes is critical in the .txt file as that's what developers are going to look at when adding a new wait event. Adding them in the header is less appealing to me considering that is it now generated, and the docs provide a lot of explanation as well. >> This has as extra consequence to require a change in >> wait_event.h so as PG_WAIT_BUFFER_PIN is renamed to PG_WAIT_BUFFERPIN, >> equally fine by me. Logically, this rename should be done in a patch >> of its own, for clarity. > > Yes, I can look at it. > [...] > Agree, I'll look at this. Thanks! > I'll look at v7 when the v17 branch opens and propose the separate patch > mentioned above at that time too. Thanks, again. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
