On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we're supposed to omit the "Lock" suffix in wait_event_names.txt.
Ugh, sorry. But also, why in the world? > > It seems like it would be good if there were an automated cross-check > > between lwlocknames.txt and wait_event_names.txt. > > +1. Here's a hastily-thrown-together patch for that. I basically copied > 003_check_guc.pl and adjusted it for this purpose. This test only checks > that everything in lwlocknames.txt has a matching entry in > wait_event_names.txt. It doesn't check that everything in the predefined > LWLock section of wait_event_names.txt has an entry in lwlocknames.txt. > AFAICT that would be a little more difficult because you can't distinguish > between the two in pg_wait_events. > > Even with this test, I worry that we could easily forget to add entries in > wait_event_names.txt for the non-predefined locks, but I don't presently > have a proposal for how to prevent that. It certainly seems better to check what we can than to check nothing. Suggestions: - Check in both directions instead of just one? - Verify ordering? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
