On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:27 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > 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.)
I think unique names are a good idea. If a user doesn't care about the difference between sdgjsA and sdjgsB, they can easily ignore the trailing suffix, and IME, people typically do that without really stopping to think about it. If on the other hand the two are lumped together as sdjgs and a user needs to distinguish them, they can't. So I see unique names as having much more upside than downside. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
