| From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, lukas(at)fittl(dot)com, alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |
| Date: | 2023-02-15 06:35:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAOtHd0AZfvoe+vC7Uv8VSfEGM0XxTHHgw4WKBV=uVC-R06w=kA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:08 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> One thing I started to wonder about since is whether we should remove the io_
> prefix from io_object, io_context. The prefixes make sense on the C level, but
> it's not clear to me that that's also the case on the table level.
Yeah, +1. It's hard to argue that there would be any confusion,
considering `io_` is in the name of the view.
(Unless, I suppose, some other, non-I/O, "some_object" or
"some_context" column were to be introduced to this view in the
future. But that doesn't seem likely?)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-02-15 06:38:21 | Re: recovery modules |
| Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2023-02-15 06:30:11 | Re: ANY_VALUE aggregate |