| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream |
| Date: | 2026-03-13 02:09:41 |
| Message-ID: | abNx5aQOlF3N1VoR@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-03-13 02:15:46 | Re: pg_stat_replication.*_lag sometimes shows NULL during active replication |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-03-13 01:49:57 | Re: Streamify more code paths |