Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Should capitalize at least the non-text one ? And maybe the text one for
> > > consistency ?
> > >
> > > + ExplainPropertyInteger("WAL fpw", NULL,
> >
> > 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.

>
> One space follwed by an acronym looks perfect. I'd prefer capital
> letters but small-letters also works well.
>
> > > And add the acronym to the docs:
> > >
> > > $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
> > > doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml: number of records, number of full page writes and amount of WAL bytes
> > >
> > > "..full page writes (FPW).."
> >
> > Indeed! Fixed (using lowercase to match current output).
>
> I searched through the documentation and AFAICS most of occurances of
> "full page" are follwed by "image" and full_page_writes is used only
> as the parameter name.
>
> I'm fine with fpw as the acronym, but "fpw means the number of full
> page images" looks odd..
>

I don't understand this. Where are we using such a description of fpw?

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