Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > With a minimal maintenance effort we can be careful enough. I think > that a comment for example in pgstat.c about the usage uniqueness > would be an adapted answer. By the way, let's discuss that on a new

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I think generating whatever we can from a single authoritative file >> is indeed a good idea. > > Yay. Indeed. >> But I had the impression that people also wanted to enforce a rule >> about

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > I think generating whatever we can from a single authoritative file > is indeed a good idea. Yay. > But I had the impression that people also wanted to enforce a rule > about "only one use of each wait event name", which'd require a > checker script, no? (I'm not really

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > This thread is surprising. If we generate the few lines of code being > in trouble, we don't need any checker script, so I don't see why we'd go > the route of the checker script instead. I think generating whatever we can from a single

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Alvaro Herrera
This thread is surprising. If we generate the few lines of code being in trouble, we don't need any checker script, so I don't see why we'd go the route of the checker script instead. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:56:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Thomas Munro writes: > >>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Thomas Munro writes: >>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was >>> thinking we should stick them under some make

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was >> thinking we should stick them under some make target that developers >> run all the time anyway --

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Munro writes: > As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was > thinking we should stick them under some make target that developers > run all the time anyway -- perhaps "check". Shouldn't we catch simple > mechanically detectable

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >>> All of the above seem like good candidates for a checker script in >>> src/tools/check_XXX.pl, a bit like the others I've

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix inadequacies in recently added wait events

2017-08-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Thread moved to -hackers. > > Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: > >> > While at it, fix numerous other problems in the vicinity: > >> All of