| From: | Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(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 13:12:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAH503wAAr8x6Cj_Nr2-tgP2ks6LMJXi=Pv+C4iTiJZdRK=cRKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Regards,
--
Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-04-06 13:25:45 | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-06 11:53:07 | Re: backup manifests and contemporaneous buildfarm failures |