Re: WAL usage calculation patch

At Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:33:13 +0200, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote in 
> > > > > I think we should keep both version consistent, whether lower or upper
> > > > > case.  The uppercase version is probably more correct, but it's a
> > > > > little bit weird to have it being the only upper case label in all
> > > > > output, so I kept it lower case.
> > >
> > > I think we can keep upper-case for all non-text ones in case of WAL
> > > usage, something like WAL Records, WAL FPW, WAL Bytes.  The buffer
> > > usage seems to be following a similar convention.
> > >
> >
> > The attached patch changed the non-text display format as mentioned.
> > Let me know if you have any comments?
> 
> Assuming that we're fine using full page write(s) / FPW  rather than
> full page image(s) / FPI (see previous mail), I'm fine with this
> patch.

FWIW, I like FPW, and the patch looks good to me. The index in the
documentation has the entry for full_page_writes (having underscores)
and it would work.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center