Re: WAL usage calculation patch

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

To: Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com>

Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Kirill Bychik <kirill.bychik@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

Date: 2020-04-07T02:35:57Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Change the display of WAL usage statistics in Explain.
- 69bfaf2e1de4 13.0 landed
Cosmetic fixups for WAL usage work.
- ef08ca113fe3 13.0 landed
Allow parallel create index to accumulate buffer usage stats.
- 5c71362174eb 13.0 landed
- f179e9f01b65 11.8 landed
- 13823ad3b012 12.3 landed
Allow autovacuum to log WAL usage statistics.
- b7ce6de93b59 13.0 landed
Add the option to report WAL usage in EXPLAIN and auto_explain.
- 33e05f89c53e 13.0 landed
Allow pg_stat_statements to track WAL usage statistics.
- 6b466bf5f2be 13.0 landed
Add infrastructure to track WAL usage.
- df3b181499b4 13.0 landed
Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output, take two.
- ce77abe63cfc 13.0 cited
Include information on buffer usage during planning phase, in EXPLAIN output.
- ed7a5095716e 13.0 cited
Allow parallel vacuum to accumulate buffer usage.
- 3a5e22138a8d 13.0 landed
Allow pg_stat_statements to track planning statistics.
- 17e03282241c 13.0 cited

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira
<euler.taveira@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:12:55AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> If we want to be consistent shouldn't we rename it to wal_fpws?  FTR I don't
>> like much either version.
>
>
> Since FPW is an acronym, plural form reads better when you are using uppercase (such as FPWs or FPW's); thus, I prefer singular form because parameter names are lowercase. Function description will clarify that this is "number of WAL full page writes".
>

I like Euler's suggestion to change wal_num_fpw to wal_fpw.  It is
better if others who didn't like this name can also share their
opinion now because changing multiple times the same thing is not a
good idea.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com