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

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: WAL usage calculation patch
Date
Msg-id CAOBaU_ZbVMGta+1OkTn3qsPd=myi9cgv1hQFpdrQZdhDOjq8PA@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  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:45 PM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-04-14 05:57, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Peter E, others, any suggestions on how to move forward?  I think here
> > > we should follow the rule "follow the style of nearby code" which in
> > > this case would be to have one space after each field as we would like
> > > it to be closer to the "Buffers" format.  It would be good if we have
> > > a unified format among all Explain stuff but we might not want to
> > > change the existing things and even if we want to do that it might be
> > > a broader/bigger change and we should do that as a PG14 change.  What
> > > do you think?
> >
> > If looks like shortening to fpw= and using one space is the easiest way
> > to solve this issue.
> >
>
> I am fine with this approach and will change accordingly.  I will wait
> for a few days (3-4 days) to see if someone shows up with either an
> objection to this or with a better idea for the display of WAL usage
> information.

That was also my preferred alternative.  PFA a patch for that.  I also
changed to "fpw" for the non textual output for consistency.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tony Locke
Date:
Subject: Re: Error on failed COMMIT
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: relocating the server's backup manifest code