Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events.

> On 25 Oct 2021, at 20:01, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> 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.

Fair enough, makes sense.

--
Daniel Gustafsson        https://vmware.com/