Re: WAL usage calculation patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+JTy6o4o_Kp_0oBPfgm1Xur4v+Wh0hEDwt5q68H-qPuA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL usage calculation patch  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WAL usage calculation patch  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:12 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:35:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:16 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >>>  The internal symbol for the WAL record is
> > >>> XLOG_FPI and xlogdesc.c prints it as "FPI".
> > >
> > > Julien, Peter, others do you have any opinion here?  I think it is
> > > better if we decide on one of FPW or FPI and make the changes at all
> > > places for this patch.
> >
> > It seems to me that Peter is right here.  A full-page write is the
> > action to write a full-page image, so if you consider only a way to
> > define the static data of a full-page and/or a quantity associated to
> > it, we should talk about full-page images.
>

Fair enough, if more people want full-page image terminology in this
context then we can do that.

> I agree with that definition.  I can send a cleanup patch if there's
> no objection.
>

Okay, feel free to send the patch.  Thanks for taking the initiative
to write a patch for this.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Concurrency bug in amcheck
Next
From: Masahiro Ikeda
Date:
Subject: Re: Why are wait events not reported even though it reads/writes atimeline history file?