Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:20 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > > Hi Justin,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Should capitalize at least the non-text one ? And maybe the text one for
> > > > > consistency ?
> > > > >
> > > > > + ExplainPropertyInteger("WAL fpw", NULL,
> > > >
> > > > 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.