On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 10:37, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@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.kapil...@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". Regards, -- Euler Taveira http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
