On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> wait-event-set-v8.patch
>
> Ok, I'm just about ready to mark this as 'Ready for Committer'.
Thanks.
> Just a couple of things:
> + pgstat_report_wait_start((uint8) classId, (uint16) eventId);
> Unnecessary casts.
Right....
> + <row>
> + <entry morerows="5"><literal>Client</></entry>
> + <entry><literal>SecureRead</></entry>
> + <entry>Waiting to read data from a secure connection.</entry>
> + </row>
> + <row>
> + <entry><literal>SecureWrite</></entry>
> + <entry>Waiting to write data to a secure connection.</entry>
> + </row>
>
> I think we want to drop the word 'secure' from the description lines
> in this patch. Then I think we plan to make a separate patch that
> will rename the functions themselves and the corresponding wait points
> to something more generic?
Robert mentioned ClientRead/ClientWrite upthread. I still think that
SecureRead/SecureWrite is better as it respects the routine name where
the wait point is, and that's consistent with the rest.
> I'm assuming that my suggestions for making WE_WAL_SENDER_WAIT_WAL and
> WE_WAL_SENDER_MAIN have a dynamically chosen class ID would also be
> material for another patch, but it doesn't matter much because those
> processes won't show up yet anyway.
WAL senders do show up since 8299471 because they are counted as in
max_connections. That's pretty cool combined with this patch.
I am sending a new patch to save 30s to the committer potentially
looking at this patch.
--
Michael