| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill(dot)bychik(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
| Date: | 2020-04-06 13:37:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20200406133735.GK1206@nol |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-06 13:39:59 | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2020-04-06 13:31:23 | Re: PostgreSQL 13 Feature Freeze + Release Management Team (RMT) |