Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Zg5yxKtZQqBXwLIo@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Autogenerate some wait events code and documentation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:50:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 07:34:09AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > I'm not sure as v2 used the "version >= 17" wording which I think would not need > > manual refresh each time a new stable branch is forked. > > > > But to avoid any doubt, I'm following your recommendation in v3 attached (then > > only mentioning the "master branch" and "any other branch"). > > I don't see why we could not be more generic, TBH. Note that the > Backpatch region should be empty not only the master branch but also > on stable and unreleased branches (aka REL_XX_STABLE branches from > their fork from master to their .0 release). I have reworded the > whole, mentioning ABI compatibility, as well. Yeah, agree. I do prefer your wording. > The position of the Backpatch regions were a bit incorrect (extra one > in LWLock, and the one in Lock was not needed). oops, thanks for the fixes! > We could be stricter with the order of the elements in > pgstat_wait_event.c and wait_event_funcs_data.c, but there's no > consequence feature-wise and I cannot get excited about the extra > complexity this creates in generate-wait_event_types.pl between the > enum generation and the rest. Yeah, and I think generate-wait_event_types.pl is already complex enough. So better to add only the strict necessary in it IMHO. > Is "Backpatch" the best choice we have, though? It speaks by itself > but I was thinking about something different, like "Stable". Other > ideas or objections are welcome. My naming sense is usually not that > good, so there's that. I think "Stable" is more confusing because the section should also be empty until the .0 is released. That said, what about "ABI_compatibility"? (that would also match the comment added in wait_event_names.txt). Attached v4 making use of the ABI_compatibility proposal. > 0001 is the patch with my tweaks. Thanks! +# No "Backpatch" region here as code is generated automatically. What about "....region here as has its own C code" (that would be more consistent with the comment in the "header" for the file). Done that way in v4. It looks like WAL_SENDER_WRITE_ZZZ was also added in it (I guess for testing purpose, so I removed it in v4). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: