Hi, Moving the other two provides a more complete view of the settings. For newcomers(like me) to the codebase, seeing all three related values in one place helps avoid a narrow view of the settings.
But I am not sure that I understand the cons of this well. Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> 于2025年3月19日周三 13:50写道： > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 02:26:47PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:53:16AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote: > > > I think these two conditions are good too. In a busy system, they are > met > > > frequently, so the flush routine will be executed at least once every > > > second. Conversely, when WAL generation is low, there's simply less > data to > > > record, and the flush frequency naturally decreases. > > > > Hmm, yeah, perhaps this is acceptable. The changes in pgstat.c seem > > inconsistent, though, only moving the min interval while the max and > > idle times stay around. > > That's right. OTOH that sounds weird to move the others 2: that would > create > wider visibility for them without real needs. That's not a big issue, > but could impact extensions or friends that would start using those should > we > change their values in the future. > The current name of the min interval appears consistent within the context of the surrounding code in this patch. Another option could be to create a dedicated one in walsender.c but I'm not > sure I like it more. > >
