On 2024-Feb-07, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 8:55 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > I made CLOGShmemBuffers, CommitTsShmemBuffers and SUBTRANSShmemBuffers
> > compute a number that's multiple of SLRU_BANK_SIZE. But it's a crock,
> > because we don't have that macro at that point, so I just used constant
> > 16. Obviously need a better solution for this.
>
> If we define SLRU_BANK_SIZE in slur.h then we can use it here right,
> because these files are anyway include slur.h so.
Sure, but is that really what we want?
> > I've been wondering whether we should add a "slru" to the name of the
> > GUCs:
> >
> > commit_timestamp_slru_buffers
> > transaction_slru_buffers
> > etc
>
> I am not sure we are exposing anything related to SLRU to the user,
We do -- we have pg_stat_slru already.
> I mean transaction_buffers should make sense for the user that it
> stores transaction-related data in some buffers pool but whether that
> buffer pool is called SLRU or not doesn't matter much to the user
> IMHO.
Yeah, that's exactly what my initial argument was for naming these this
way. But since the term slru already escaped into the wild via the
pg_stat_slru view, perhaps it helps users make the connection between
these things. Alternatively, we can cross-reference each term from the
other's documentation and call it a day.
Another painful point is that pg_stat_slru uses internal names in the
data it outputs, which obviously do not match the new GUCs.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Uno puede defenderse de los ataques; contra los elogios se esta indefenso"
