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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+pey2Nz8h9WYsXfst8ggpUtnPSg=Sa58fyDY93rdmm5w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL usage calculation patch  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WAL usage calculation patch  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:17 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:22:26 +0200, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > Hi Justin,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> 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.
>
> I think we can keep upper-case for all non-text ones in case of WAL
> usage, something like WAL Records, WAL FPW, WAL Bytes.  The buffer
> usage seems to be following a similar convention.
>

The attached patch changed the non-text display format as mentioned.
Let me know if you have any comments?

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2
Next
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL usage calculation patch