On 2020/09/04 11:50, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote: > From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> >>> I changed the view name from pg_stat_walwrites to pg_stat_walwriter. >>> I think it is better to match naming scheme with other views like >> pg_stat_bgwriter, >>> which is for bgwriter statistics but it has the statistics related to backend. >> >> I prefer the view name pg_stat_walwriter for the consistency with >> other view names. But we also have pg_stat_wal_receiver. Which >> makes me think that maybe pg_stat_wal_writer is better for >> the consistency. Thought? IMO either of them works for me. >> I'd like to hear more opinons about this. > > I think pg_stat_bgwriter is now a misnomer, because it contains the backends' activity. Likewise, pg_stat_walwriter leads to misunderstanding because its information is not limited to WAL writer. > > How about simply pg_stat_wal? In the future, we may want to include WAL reads in this view, e.g. reading undo logs in zheap.
Sounds reasonable.
+1.
pg_stat_bgwriter has had the "wrong name" for quite some time now -- it became even more apparent when the checkpointer was split out to it's own process, and that's not exactly a recent change. And it had allocs in it from day one...
I think naming it for what the data in it is ("wal") rather than which process deals with it ("walwriter") is correct, unless the statistics can be known to only *ever* affect one type of process. (And then different processes can affect different columns in the view). As a general rule -- and that's from what I can tell exactly what's being proposed.
