Re: WAL usage calculation patch

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:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Would you like to send a consolidated patch that includes Euler's
> > > suggestion and Justin's patch (by making changes for points we
> > > discussed.)? I think we can keep the point related to number of
> > > spaces before each field open?
> >
> > Sure, I'll take care of that tomorrow!
>
> 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.

I have made the above two changes in the attached. Let me know what
you think about attached?

> - no change to the explain output as I have no idea what is the
> consensus (one or two spaces, use semicolon or equal, show unit or
> not)
>

Yeah, let's do this separately once we have consensus.

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