Re: WAL usage calculation patch
| От | Euler Taveira |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAH503wBqYx2+ZZMjr-B3WDD+UNruboVfGtKMNwaSaOcycHT+NQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: WAL usage calculation patch (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: WAL usage calculation patch
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain related patches. I am
> > now looking into (auto)vacuum patch and have few comments.
> >
> > I wasn't paying much attention to this thread. May I suggest changing
> wal_num_fpw to wal_fpw? wal_records and wal_bytes does not have a prefix
> 'num'. It seems inconsistent to me.
>
If we want to be consistent shouldn't we rename it to wal_fpws? FTR I don't
like much either version.
Since FPW is an acronym, plural form reads better when you are using uppercase (such as FPWs or FPW's); thus, I prefer singular form because parameter names are lowercase. Function description will clarify that this is "number of WAL full page writes".
Regards,
Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: