On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 6:42 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 02:21:12PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > Apologies as I know this docs update has already been committed, but
> > buffers fetched and blocks fetched both feel weird to me. If you have a
> > cache hit, you don't end up really "fetching" anything at all (since
> > pgstat_count_buffer_read() is called before ReadBuffer_common() and we
> > don't know if it is a hit or miss yet). And, I would normally associate
> > fetching with fetching a block into a buffer. It seems like this counter
> > is really reflecting the number of buffers acquired or used.
>
> Well, it is the number of times we've requested a block read, though
> it may not actually be a read if the block was in the cache already.
>
> > This isn't really the fault of this patch since that member was already
> > called blocks_fetched.
>
> The original documentation of these functions added by 46aa77c refers
> to "block fetch requests" and "block requests found in cache", so that
> would not be right either based on your opinion here. If you find
> "fetch" to be incorrect in this context, here is another idea:
> - "block read requests" for blocks_fetched().
> - "block read requested but actually found in cache" for blocks_hit().
I do like/prefer "block read requests" and
"blocks requested found in cache"
Though, now I fear my initial complaint may have been a bit pedantic.
- Melanie
