On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:27 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:25 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:15:08AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > And add the acronym to the docs: > > > > > > > > > > > > $ git grep 'full page' '*/explain.sgml' > > > > > > doc/src/sgml/ref/explain.sgml: number of records, number of > > > > > > full page writes and amount of WAL bytes > > > > > > > > > > > > "..full page writes (FPW).." > > > > > > > > > > Indeed! Fixed (using lowercase to match current output). > > > > > > > > I searched through the documentation and AFAICS most of occurances of > > > > "full page" are follwed by "image" and full_page_writes is used only > > > > as the parameter name. > > > > > > > > I'm fine with fpw as the acronym, but "fpw means the number of full > > > > page images" looks odd.. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand this. Where are we using such a description of fpw? > > > > I suggested to add " (FPW)" to the new docs for "explain(wal)" > > But, the documentation before this commit mostly refers to "full page > > images". > > So the implication is that maybe we should use that language (and FPI > > acronym). > > > > I am not sure if it matters that much. I think we can use "full page > writes (FPW)" in this case but we should be consistent wherever we > refer it in the WAL usage context and I think we already are, if not > then let's be consistent.
I agree that full page writes can be used in this case, but I'm wondering if that can be misleading for some reader which might e.g. confuse with the full_page_writes GUC. And as Justin pointed out, the documentation for now usually mentions "full page image(s)" in such cases.
