Hi,
On 5/6/23 4:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
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.
I agree that's not a big deal and I'm not against having these notes at the end
of all the tables.
We could discuss another approach for the "Note" part if there is a
need to add one for an existing/new wait class though.
means, that was more a NIT comment from my side.
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.
Your argument that the header is now generated makes me change my mind: I
know think that having the comments in the .txt file is enough.
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!
Please find the dedicated patch proposal in [1].
[1]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c6f35117-4b20-4c78-1df5-d3056010dcf5%40gmail.com
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
