> > > > > Regarding v10-0004-Add-option-to-report-WAL-usage-in-EXPLAIN-and-au.patch:
> > > > > I think there should be additional spaces before "full" and before "bytes":
> > > > >
> > > > > > WAL: records=2359 full page records=42 bytes=447788
> > > > >
> > > > > Compare with these:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sort Method: %s %s: %ldkB\n",
> > > > > "Buckets: %d (originally %d) Batches: %d (originally %d) Memory Usage: %ldkB\n",
> > > > > "Buckets: %d Batches: %d Memory Usage: %ldkB\n",
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise "records=2359 full page records=42" is hard to parse.
> > > >
> > > > I got the same feeling seeing the line.
> > >
> > > But isn't this same as we have BufferUsage data? We can probably
> > > display it as full_page_writes or something like that.
> >
> > I guess you mean this:
> > Buffers: shared hit=994 read=11426 dirtied=466
> >
> > Which can show shared/local/temp. Actually I would probably make the same
> > suggestion for "Buffers" (if it were a new patch). I would find this to be
> > pretty unfriendly output:
> >
> > Buffers: shared hit=12345 read=12345 dirtied=12345 local hit=12345 read=12345 dirtied=12345 temp hit=12345
read=12345dirtied=12345
> >
> > Adding two extra spaces " local" and " temp" would have helped there, so
> > would commas, or parenthesis, dashes or almost anything - other than a
> > backslash.
> >
> > So I think you're right that WAL is very similar to the Buffers case[...]
Actually, I take that back. If I understand correctly, there should be two
spaces not only to make the 2nd field more clear, but because the three values
have different units:
> > > > > > WAL: records=2359 full page records=42 bytes=447788
1) records; 2) pages ("full page images"); 3) bytes
That is exactly like sort (method/type/size) and hash (buckets/batches/size),
and *not* like buffers, which shows various values all in units of "pages".
--
Justin