Hi,
On 2022-04-04 15:24:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Replacing the existing assert(!kind->fixed_amount) with
> assert(!kind->accessed_across_databases) produces the same result as the
> later presently implies the former.
I wasn't proposing to replace, but to add...
> Now I start to dislike the behavioral aspect of the attribute and would
> rather just name it: kind->is_cluster_scoped (or something else that is
> descriptive of the stat category itself, not how it is used)
I'm not in love with the name either. But cluster is just a badly overloaded
word :(.
system_wide? Or invert it and say: database_scoped? I think I like the latter.
> Then reorganize the Kind documentation to note and emphasize these two
> primary descriptors:
> variable, which can be cluster or database scoped
> fixed, which are cluster scoped by definition
Hm. There's not actually that much difference between cluster/non-cluster wide
scope for most of the system. I'm not strongly against, but I'm also not
really seeing the benefit.
> (if this is true...but given this is an optimization category I'm thinking
> maybe it doesn't actually matter...)
It is true. Not sure what you mean with "optimization category"?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
