Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream

Hi Michael,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 6:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:47 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 09:10:45PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > > It might be better to just use the phrase "This number ..." since the
> > > earlier sentence mentions it as "number". I have made that change in
> > > my repository. Will send it with the next version of patchset.
> >
> > I have studied this thread, and can get behind the idea of adding the
> > number of bytes sent to the output plugin at this level.
> >
> > However, I think that patch 0001 should be split into two parts,
> > because it is doing two separate things, not one:
> > - One patch for the rename of the existing fields total_txns and
> > total_bytes to respectively total_wal_txns and total_wal_bytes, so as
> > it becomes possible to make the distinction between the stats data
> > coming from WAL. (The suggested rename was a bit confusing for me
> > first, FWIW, when I read total_wal_bytes, my mind understood that as a
> > total number of WAL generated, even if I get that that it comes from
> > an amount of WAL data processed when decoding transactions. Not an
> > objection, just a feeling).
> > - A second patch to introduce the new field for the number of bytes
> > sent to the output plugin.
> >
>
> I am open to other suggestions. Since the bytes in total_bytes and
> sent_bytes refer to different set of bytes, it was thought to be
> better to rename total_bytes and hence total_txns. But then
> stream_bytes, spill_bytes too come from WAL and they are not renamed
> right now. So there's already some awkwardness. I also see that wal in
> the name can be confusing. I thought of using "reordered" instead of
> "wal" but reorder buffer is an internal concept. If we change the
> reorder buffer mechanism tomorrow, we will need to change the name of
> the field. So we discarded that. I am wondering whether we should just
> leave the name as is and rely on documentation to clarify the
> difference. What do you think?
>

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.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.