On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira <euler.tave...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > 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". >
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
