Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 15:37:35 +0200
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
	Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Message-ID: <20200406133735.GK1206@nol>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH503wAAr8x6Cj_Nr2-tgP2ks6LMJXi=Pv+C4iTiJZdRK=cRKg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.