Re: WAL usage calculation patch

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, kirill(dot)bychik(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date: 2020-04-23 05:54:27
Message-ID: 20200423.145427.1030154123666766372.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:33:13 +0200, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > > > 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.

FWIW, I like FPW, and the patch looks good to me. The index in the
documentation has the entry for full_page_writes (having underscores)
and it would work.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 曾文旌 2020-04-23 06:21:43 Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-04-23 05:36:15 Re: [PATCH] Fix buffer not null terminated on (ecpg lib)