Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
<euler(dot)taveira(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)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.
>
>
> Since FPW is an acronym, plural form reads better when you are using uppercase (such as FPWs or FPW's); thus, I prefer singular form because parameter names are lowercase. Function description will clarify that this is "number of WAL full page writes".
>

I like Euler's suggestion to change wal_num_fpw to wal_fpw. It is
better if others who didn't like this name can also share their
opinion now because changing multiple times the same thing is not a
good idea.

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