pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 15:37:35 +0200
Message-ID: <20200406133735.GK1206@nol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH503wAAr8x6Cj_Nr2-tgP2ks6LMJXi=Pv+C4iTiJZdRK=cRKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA4eK1Jh=EjwK+etqeaWM6gcNaex1FX6xTFqR7QXXQy2CmGQsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1KqiWqAgw9ETchcQf-z9ZY4aUN-4QvTh0R26+DpNnTDHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1+sSXvf45x6CbXTEywzXLNcuwWUy-m1rg2KyJKcEXBPvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200404060303.n2q74lbccjm2swdc@nol>
	<CAA4eK1Kep_Wv1ZK+ODLhioPdP8VD4HuHx5d-C2h9s83yriYejg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200404085423.GC1206@nol>
	<CAA4eK1JmoDH1zoxAi9BEszVe+5BNquJDN3E-RRADdrYHv3TCRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20200404092015.GE1206@nol>
	<CAA4eK1+OzW92A=nrJqNg6+M5jZ_fdpSAW45tBnFpdWv4035QRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH503wAAr8x6Cj_Nr2-tgP2ks6LMJXi=Pv+C4iTiJZdRK=cRKg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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.





view thread (130+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20200406133735.GK1206@nol>
Permalink:  ../20200406133735.GK1206@nol/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20200406133735.GK1206@nol

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: rjuju123@gmail.com, euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, kirill.bychik@gmail.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com
  Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
  In-Reply-To: <20200406133735.GK1206@nol>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox