Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > >> It turns out that I hate the fact that the Wait Event Name column is > >> effectively in a random order. If a user sees a message, and goes to > >> look up the value in the wait_event description table, they either > >> have to search with their browser/PDF viewer, or scan down the list > >> looking for the item they're looking for, not knowing how far down it > >> will be. The same goes for wait event type.
> Hmm, I'm not sure this is a good idea. I don't think it's crazy to > report the locks in the order they are defined in the source code; > many people will be familiar with that order, and it might make the > list easier to maintain. On the other hand, I'm also not sure this is > a bad idea. Alphabetical order is a widely-used standard. So, I'm > going to abstain from any strong position here and ask what other > people think of Thom's proposed change. I think using implementation order is crazy. +1 for alphabetical. If this really makes devs' lives more difficult (and I disagree that it does), let's reorder the items in the source code too. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
