evtcache: EventTriggerCache vs Event Trigger Cache

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

When reading a memory contexts log I realized that we have this:
LOG: level: 2; EventTriggerCache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7928 free (4 chunks); 264 used
LOG: level: 3; Event Trigger Cache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 2616 free (0 chunks); 5576 used

The reason is that BuildEventTriggerCache sets up a context "EventTriggerCache"
which house a hash named "Event Trigger Cache" which in turn creates a context
with the table name. I think it makes sense that these share the same name,
but I think it would be less confusing if they also shared the same spelling
whitespace-wise. Any reason to not rename the hash EventTriggerCache to make
the logging a tiny bit easier to read and grep?

Hmm, I'm kinda -1 on them having the same name visible in the
contexts dump --- that seems very confusing. How about naming
the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?

regards, tom lane

On 4 May 2023, at 14:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

When reading a memory contexts log I realized that we have this:
LOG: level: 2; EventTriggerCache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7928 free (4 chunks); 264 used
LOG: level: 3; Event Trigger Cache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 2616 free (0 chunks); 5576 used

The reason is that BuildEventTriggerCache sets up a context "EventTriggerCache"
which house a hash named "Event Trigger Cache" which in turn creates a context
with the table name. I think it makes sense that these share the same name,
but I think it would be less confusing if they also shared the same spelling
whitespace-wise. Any reason to not rename the hash EventTriggerCache to make
the logging a tiny bit easier to read and grep?

Hmm, I'm kinda -1 on them having the same name visible in the
contexts dump --- that seems very confusing. How about naming
the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?

I think the level is the indicator here, but I have no strong opinions,
EventTriggerCacheHash is fine by me.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

On 4 May 2023, at 14:18, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:

On 4 May 2023, at 14:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:

When reading a memory contexts log I realized that we have this:
LOG: level: 2; EventTriggerCache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 7928 free (4 chunks); 264 used
LOG: level: 3; Event Trigger Cache: 8192 total in 1 blocks; 2616 free (0 chunks); 5576 used

The reason is that BuildEventTriggerCache sets up a context "EventTriggerCache"
which house a hash named "Event Trigger Cache" which in turn creates a context
with the table name. I think it makes sense that these share the same name,
but I think it would be less confusing if they also shared the same spelling
whitespace-wise. Any reason to not rename the hash EventTriggerCache to make
the logging a tiny bit easier to read and grep?

Hmm, I'm kinda -1 on them having the same name visible in the
contexts dump --- that seems very confusing. How about naming
the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?

I think the level is the indicator here, but I have no strong opinions,
EventTriggerCacheHash is fine by me.

The attached trivial diff does that, parking this in the next CF.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 10:39:42AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:

On 4 May 2023, at 14:18, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:

On 4 May 2023, at 14:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Hmm, I'm kinda -1 on them having the same name visible in the
contexts dump --- that seems very confusing. How about naming
the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?

I think the level is the indicator here, but I have no strong opinions,
EventTriggerCacheHash is fine by me.

The attached trivial diff does that, parking this in the next CF.

+1 for EventTriggerCacheHash

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

On 8 May 2023, at 10:39, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:

On 4 May 2023, at 14:18, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:

On 4 May 2023, at 14:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

How about naming
the hash "EventTriggerCacheHash" or so?

I think the level is the indicator here, but I have no strong opinions,
EventTriggerCacheHash is fine by me.

The attached trivial diff does that, parking this in the next CF.

Pushed, thanks!

--
Daniel Gustafsson