Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Euler Taveira
Subject Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date
Msg-id CAH503wAAr8x6Cj_Nr2-tgP2ks6LMJXi=Pv+C4iTiJZdRK=cRKg@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
Tree view
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 00:25, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:

I have pushed pg_stat_statements and Explain related patches.  I am
now looking into (auto)vacuum patch and have few comments.

I wasn't paying much attention to this thread. May I suggest changing wal_num_fpw to wal_fpw? wal_records and wal_bytes does not have a prefix 'num'. It seems inconsistent to me.

 
Regards,


--
Euler Taveira                 http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: backup manifests and contemporaneous buildfarm failures
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: adding partitioned tables to publications