On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 21:00, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 19:11, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Anyway, I was just throwing this idea out to see if there would be > >> howls of "you can't rename anything" anguish. Since there haven't > >> been so far, I'll spend a bit more time and try to create a concrete > >> list of possible changes. > > > If we add in extensions and lwlocks, will they show up as well? > > Yeah, I was just looking into that. Part of the reason for the > inconsistency is that we've exposed names that are passed to, > eg, SimpleLruInit that previously were strictly internal debugging > identifiers, so that approximately zero thought was put into them. > > We're going to have to document SimpleLruInit and similar functions > along the lines of "The name you give here will be user-visible as > a wait event. Choose it with an eye to consistency with existing > wait event names, and add it to the user-facing documentation." > But that requirement isn't something I just invented, it was > effectively created by whoever implemented things this way. > > Said user-facing documentation largely fails to explain that the > set of wait events can be enlarged by extensions; that needs to > be fixed, too. > > There isn't a lot we can do to force extensions to pick consistent > names, but on the other hand we won't be documenting such names > anyway, so for my immediate purposes it doesn't matter ;-) >
I think we need to plan the namespace with extensions in mind. There are now dozens; some of them even help you view wait events... We don't want the equivalent of the Dewey decimal system: 300 categories of Exaggeration and one small corner for Science. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> Mission Critical Databases
