Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andrey M. Borodin
Тема Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
Дата
Msg-id 270FBE56-4F83-4FDE-BFFC-18EFF54DE30A@yandex-team.ru
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers

> 12 мая 2020 г., в 20:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> написал(а):
>
> Thoughts?
>

I've been coping with cognitive load of these names recently. 2 cents of my impressions:
1. Names are somewhat recognisable and seem to have some meaning. But there is not so much information about them in
theInternet. But I did not try to Google them all, just a small subset. 
2. Anyway, names should be grepable and googlable, i.e. unique amid identifiers.
3. I think names observed in wait_event and wait_event_type should not duplicate information. i.e. "XidGenLock" is
already"LWLock". 
4. It's hard to tell the difference between "buffer_content", "buffer_io", "buffer_mapping", "BufferPin",
"BufFileRead","BufFileWrite" and some others. "CLogControlLock" vs "clog"? I'm not sure good DBA can tell the
differencewithout looking up into the code. 
I hope some thoughts will be useful.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pgsql: Show opclass and opfamily related information in psql