Re: WAL usage calculation patch

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".

Regards,

--
Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services