Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster.
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZJoqNmgv0U2S5bcqnFaNtaCeesWLZxA+3pvU3aD2bsvA@mail.gmail.com 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.
Re: Our naming of wait events is a disaster. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I've been trying to reformat table 27.4 (wait events) to fit > into PDF output, which has caused me to study its contents > more than I ever had before. That reminds me that it might be easier to maintain that table if we broke it up into one table per major category - that is, one table for lwlocks, one table for IPC, one table for IO, etc. - instead of a single table with a row-span number that is large and frequently updated incorrectly. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: