On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 3/10/16 8:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> 1. We make it true only for heavyweight lock waits, and false for >> other kinds of waits. That's pretty strange. >> 2. We make it true for all kinds of waits that we now know how to >> report. That still breaks compatibility. > > > I would absolutely vote for 2 here. You could even argue that it's a bug > fix, since those were waits we technically should have been indicating.
You could also argue that's a compatibility break, because people may have logic that assumes that a wait is always a heavyweight lock wait. If we keep the column but change the meaning, people who need to update their scripts may fail to notice. Hard breaks aren't that fun, but at least you don't fail to notice that something needs to be changed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
