On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:14 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 6:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 4. > > > > /* # of WAL full page image generated */ > > > > Can we change it to "/* # of WAL full page image records generated */"? > > > > > > IMHO, "# of WAL full-page image records" seems like the number of wal > > > record which contains the full-page image. > > > > > > > I think this resembles what you have written here. > > > > > But, actually, this is the > > > total number of the full-page images, not the number of records that > > > have a full-page image. > > > > > > > We count this when forming WAL records. As per my understanding, all > > three counters are about WAL records. This counter tells how many > > records have full page images and one of the purposes of having this > > counter is to check what percentage of records contain full page > > image. > > > > How about if say "# of full-page writes generated" or "# of WAL > full-page writes generated"? I think now I understand your concern > because we want to display it as full page writes and the comment > doesn't seem to indicate the same.
Either of these seem good to me. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
