Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
> > > <euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Few comments:
> > > 1.
> > > - int64 wal_num_fpw; /* # of WAL full page image records generated */
> > > + int64 wal_num_fpw; /* # of WAL full page images generated */
> > >
> > > Let's change comment as " /* # of WAL full page writes generated */"
> > > to be consistent with other places like instrument.h. Also, make a
> > > similar change at other places if required.
> >
> > Agreed. That's pg_stat_statements.c and instrument.h. I'll send a
> > patch once we reach consensus with the rest of the comments.
> >
>
> Would you like to send a consolidated patch that includes Euler's
> suggestion and Justin's patch (by making changes for points we
> discussed.)? I think we can keep the point related to number of
> spaces before each field open?

Sure, I'll take care of that tomorrow!

> > > 2.
> > > <entry>
> > > - Total amount of WAL bytes generated by the statement
> > > + Total number of WAL bytes generated by the statement
> > > </entry>
> > >
> > > I feel the previous text was better as this field can give us the size
> > > of WAL with which we can answer "how much WAL data is generated by a
> > > particular statement?". Julien, do you have any thoughts on this?
> >
> > I also prefer "amount" as it feels more natural.
> >
>
> As we see no other opinion on this matter, we can use "amount" here.

Ok.