On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 6:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 4.
> > > > /* # of WAL full page image generated */
> > > > Can we change it to "/* # of WAL full page image records generated */"?
> > >
> > > IMHO, "# of WAL full-page image records" seems like the number of wal
> > > record which contains the full-page image.
> > >
> >
> > I think this resembles what you have written here.
> >
> > > But, actually, this is the
> > > total number of the full-page images, not the number of records that
> > > have a full-page image.
> > >
> >
> > We count this when forming WAL records. As per my understanding, all
> > three counters are about WAL records. This counter tells how many
> > records have full page images and one of the purposes of having this
> > counter is to check what percentage of records contain full page
> > image.
> >
>
> How about if say "# of full-page writes generated" or "# of WAL
> full-page writes generated"? I think now I understand your concern
> because we want to display it as full page writes and the comment
> doesn't seem to indicate the same.
Either of these seem good to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
