Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream

On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 7:39 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 06:13:33PM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Could you please share your thoughts on this? Your inputs would help
> > us determine the next steps - whether we should proceed with renaming,
> > and if so, what names you would suggest, or whether we should leave
> > things as they are.
>
> FWIW, I still find the use of _wal_ in these fields rather confusing,
> and they add more inconsistencies with the internal structures of
> reorderbuffer.c. The goal is to add a field to track the number of
> bytes sent downstream. Hence, I would suggest to give up on the
> rename, add the new field, perhaps consider improving the docs for the
> existing fields to tell to which context these numbers refer to, then
> call it a day.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Michael, I had a similar idea in
mind. I'll go ahead and implement these changes and come up with the
new patches. Now since this is purely additive (new columns only), I'm
thinking a single patch might suffice, Or maybe, we could split it
into two: one that corrects the existing documentation and another
that introduces the new fields for displaying downstream bytes sent
and some other information related to this.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.