On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> ... You might want to revisit the issue of how the new
>> columns in pg_stat_statements are named, as well. I am not sure I'm
>> happy with that, but neither am I sure that I know what I'd like
>> better. It's not too clear that the timing is specifically for data
>> block reads and writes, for example.
>
> Well, the names "time_read" and "time_write" are certainly out of step
> with every other stats view in the system; everyplace else, such columns
> are named "something_time" (and even in this view itself the other
> timing column is "total_time", not "time_total"). So that's got to
> change. We could just reverse the word order to "read_time" and
> "write_time", or we could do something like "buf_read_time" or
> "data_read_time". IIUC block_read_time/block_write_time in the
> pg_stat_database view are database-wide totals for the same numbers, so
> perhaps the pg_stat_statements column names should be consistent with
> those. I am kinda wondering though why those columns spell out "block"
> where every single other column name in the stats views uses the
> abbreviation "blk".
I like the idea of including the word block in there. I don't think
it was probably a terribly good idea to abbreviate that to blk
everywhere, but at this point it's probably better to be consistent,
sigh.
As for track_iotiming -> track_io_timing, I'm fine with that as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
