Re: WAL usage calculation patch

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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.