Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > check-world passes all tests. Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > > If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > > users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > > check-world passes all tests. > > Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are > not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. > No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to remove these events which were required by the previous versions of the patch. I'll take care of this. Thanks for the report and patch! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On 2021/10/20 18:17, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make >>> users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make >>> check-world passes all tests. >> >> Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are >> not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. >> > > No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during > development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to > remove these events which were required by the previous versions of > the patch. I'll take care of this. > > Thanks for the report and patch! Thanks for your replies and for handling it! Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > > On 2021/10/20 18:17, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > >>> If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > >>> users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > >>> check-world passes all tests. > >> > >> Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are > >> not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. > >> > > > > No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during > > development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to > > remove these events which were required by the previous versions of > > the patch. I'll take care of this. > > > > Thanks for the report and patch! > Thanks for your replies and for handling it! > Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Re: LogicalChanges* and LogicalSubxact* wait events are never reported
On 2021/10/21 17:40, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 3:46 PM Masahiro Ikeda > wrote: >> >> On 2021/10/20 18:17, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Michael Paquier >>> wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 02:12:20PM +0900, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > If my understanding is right, it's better to remove them since they make > users confused. Please see the attached patch. I confirmed that to make > check-world passes all tests. Yeah, I don't see the point in keeping these events around if they are not used. Perhaps Amit has some plans for them, though. >>> >>> No, there is no plan for these. As far as I remember, during >>> development, we have decided to use BufFile interface and forgot to >>> remove these events which were required by the previous versions of >>> the patch. I'll take care of this. >>> >>> Thanks for the report and patch! >> Thanks for your replies and for handling it! >> > > Pushed! Thanks! Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
