Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events.

On 2021-10-25 13:39:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> > Since this will cause integer values to have different textual enum value
> > representations in 14 and 15+, do we want to skip two numbers by assigning the
> > next wait event the integer value of WAIT_EVENT_WAL_WRITE incremented by three?
> > Or enum integer reuse not something we guarantee against across major versions?
> 
> We require a recompile across major versions.  I don't see a reason why
> this particular enum needs more stability than any other one.

+1. That'd end up pushing us to be more conservative about defining new wait
events, which I think would be bad tradeoff.