Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20240105164203.GC2168314@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for reviewing. On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 07:39:39AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > Another option could be to create a sub-section for predefined LWLocks that are > part of lwlocknames.txt and then sort both list (the one in the sub-section and > the one in lwlocknames.txt). That would avoid the "must be listed in the same order" > constraint. That said, I think the way it is done in the patch is fine because > if one does not follow the constraint then the build would fail. IMHO the ordering constraint makes it easier for humans to verify the lists match. > + die "lists of predefined LWLocks in lwlocknames.txt and wait_event_names.txt do not match" > + unless $wait_event_lwlocks[$i] eq $lockname; > > What about printing $wait_event_lwlocks[$i] and $lockname in the error message? > Something like? > > " > die "lists of predefined LWLocks in lwlocknames.txt and wait_event_names.txt do not match (comparing $lockname and$wait_event_lwlocks[$i])" > unless $wait_event_lwlocks[$i] eq $lockname; > " > > I think that would give more clues for debugging purpose. Sure, I'll add something like that. I think this particular scenario is less likely, but that's not a reason to make the error message hard to decipher. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: