Re: WAL usage calculation patch

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Julien Rouhaud
Тема
Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Дата
Msg-id
CAOBaU_Z5dK=cMXTaEEgXNCY7GrsBnVfk4vwK2h7o+2Aowb33Qw@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
WAL usage calculation patch Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>
Re: WAL usage calculation patch Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: WAL usage calculation patch Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: WAL usage calculation patch Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>
Re: WAL usage calculation patch Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>
Re: WAL usage calculation patch Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Re: WAL usage calculation patch Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Hi Justin,

Thanks for the review!

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby  wrote:
>
> Should capitalize at least the non-text one ?  And maybe the text one for
> consistency ?
>
> +               ExplainPropertyInteger("WAL fpw", NULL,

I think we should keep both version consistent, whether lower or upper
case.  The uppercase version is probably more correct, but it's a
little bit weird to have it being the only upper case label in all
output, so I kept it lower case.

> And add the acronym to the docs:
>
> $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml'
> doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml:      number of records, number of full page writes and amount of WAL bytes
>
> "..full page writes (FPW).."

Indeed!  Fixed (using lowercase to match current output).

> Should we also change vacuumlazy.c for consistency ?
>
> +                                                        _("WAL usage: %ld records, %ld full page writes, "
> +                                                          UINT64_FORMAT " bytes"),

I don't think this one should be changed, vacuumlazy output is already
entirely different, and is way more verbose so keeping it as is makes
sense to me.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: James Coleman
Дата:
От: Ranier Vilela
Дата:
FAQ