On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:29:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > You are adding twelve event points with only 5 > new wait names. Couldn't it be better to have a one-one mapping > instead, adding twelve entries in wait_event_names.txt?
No, I think the patch's level of detail is better. One shouldn't expect the two ldap_simple_bind_s() calls to have different-enough performance characteristics to justify exposing that level of detail to the DBA. ldap_search_s() and InitializeLDAPConnection() differ more, but the DBA mostly just needs to know the scale of their LDAP responsiveness problem. (Someday, it might be good to expose the file:line and/or backtrace associated with a wait, like we do for ereport(). As a way to satisfy rare needs for more detail, I'd prefer that over giving every pgstat_report_wait_start() a different name.)
