Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:10 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:55 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 9:37 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > I tried to take into account all that have been discussed, but I have
> > > to admit that I'm absolutely not sure of what was actually decided
> > > here. I went with those changes:
> > >
> > > - rename wal_num_fpw to wal_fpw for consistency, both in pgss view
> > > fiel name but also everywhere in the code
> > > - change comments to consistently mention "full page writes generated"
> > > - changed pgss and explain documentation to mention "full page images
> > > generated", from Justin's patch on another thread
> > >
> >
> > I think it is better to use "full page writes" to be consistent with
> > other places.
> >
> > > - kept "amount" of WAL bytes
> > >
> >
> > Okay, but I would like to make another change suggested by Justin
> > which is to replace "count" with "number" at a few places.
>
> Ah sorry I missed this one. +1 it also sounds better.
>
> > I have made the above two changes in the attached. Let me know what
> > you think about attached?
>
> It all looks good to me!
>

Pushed.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com