Drop back the redundant "Lock" suffix from LWLock wait event names

Started by Bertrand Drouvotover 1 year ago3 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Bertrand Drouvot
bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com

Hi hackers,

da952b415f unintentionally added back the "Lock" suffix into the LWLock wait
event names:

- "added back" because the "Lock" suffix was removed in 14a9101091
- "unintentionally" because there is nothing in the thread [2]/messages/by-id/202401231025.gbv4nnte5fmm@alvherre.pgsql that explicitly
mentions that the idea was also to revert 14a9101091

Please find attached a patch to remove it back so that the pg_stat_activity
view now reports back the LWLock without the "Lock" suffix (as pg_wait_events
and the related documentation do).

It has been reported in bug #18728 (see [1]/messages/by-id/18728-450924477056a339@postgresql.org).

[1]: /messages/by-id/18728-450924477056a339@postgresql.org
[2]: /messages/by-id/202401231025.gbv4nnte5fmm@alvherre.pgsql

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachments:

v1-0001-Drop-back-the-redundant-Lock-suffix-from-LWLock-w.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload+2-2
#2Alvaro Herrera
alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
In reply to: Bertrand Drouvot (#1)
Re: Drop back the redundant "Lock" suffix from LWLock wait event names

On 2024-Dec-02, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:

Hi hackers,

da952b415f unintentionally added back the "Lock" suffix into the LWLock wait
event names:

- "added back" because the "Lock" suffix was removed in 14a9101091
- "unintentionally" because there is nothing in the thread [2] that explicitly
mentions that the idea was also to revert 14a9101091

Oh, you're right, this was unintentional and unnoticed. I'll push this
shortly, to both 17 and master.

--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

#3Alvaro Herrera
alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
In reply to: Alvaro Herrera (#2)
Re: Drop back the redundant "Lock" suffix from LWLock wait event names

On 2024-Dec-02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

Oh, you're right, this was unintentional and unnoticed. I'll push this
shortly, to both 17 and master.

Pushed, thanks Christophe and Bertrand.

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
<Schwern> It does it in a really, really complicated way
<crab> why does it need to be complicated?
<Schwern> Because it's MakeMaker.