Hi, Moving the other two provides a more complete view of the settings. For newcomers(like me) to the codebase, seeing all three related values in one place helps avoid a narrow view of the settings.
But I am not sure that I understand the cons of this well.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 02:26:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:53:16AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote: > > I think these two conditions are good too. In a busy system, they are met > > frequently, so the flush routine will be executed at least once every > > second. Conversely, when WAL generation is low, there's simply less data to > > record, and the flush frequency naturally decreases. > > Hmm, yeah, perhaps this is acceptable. The changes in pgstat.c seem > inconsistent, though, only moving the min interval while the max and > idle times stay around.
That's right. OTOH that sounds weird to move the others 2: that would create wider visibility for them without real needs. That's not a big issue, but could impact extensions or friends that would start using those should we change their values in the future.
The current name of the min interval appears consistent within the context of the surrounding code in this patch.
Another option could be to create a dedicated one in walsender.c but I'm not sure I like it more.
