On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 6:42 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 02:21:12PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote: > > Apologies as I know this docs update has already been committed, but > > buffers fetched and blocks fetched both feel weird to me. If you have a > > cache hit, you don't end up really "fetching" anything at all (since > > pgstat_count_buffer_read() is called before ReadBuffer_common() and we > > don't know if it is a hit or miss yet). And, I would normally associate > > fetching with fetching a block into a buffer. It seems like this counter > > is really reflecting the number of buffers acquired or used. > > Well, it is the number of times we've requested a block read, though > it may not actually be a read if the block was in the cache already. > > > This isn't really the fault of this patch since that member was already > > called blocks_fetched. > > The original documentation of these functions added by 46aa77c refers > to "block fetch requests" and "block requests found in cache", so that > would not be right either based on your opinion here. If you find > "fetch" to be incorrect in this context, here is another idea: > - "block read requests" for blocks_fetched(). > - "block read requested but actually found in cache" for blocks_hit().
I do like/prefer "block read requests" and "blocks requested found in cache" Though, now I fear my initial complaint may have been a bit pedantic. - Melanie
