On 2020/09/04 11:50, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>
I changed the view name from pg_stat_walwrites to pg_stat_walwriter.
I think it is better to match naming scheme with other views like
pg_stat_bgwriter,
which is for bgwriter statistics but it has the statistics related to backend.
I prefer the view name pg_stat_walwriter for the consistency with
other view names. But we also have pg_stat_wal_receiver. Which
makes me think that maybe pg_stat_wal_writer is better for
the consistency. Thought? IMO either of them works for me.
I'd like to hear more opinons about this.
I think pg_stat_bgwriter is now a misnomer, because it contains the backends'
activity. Likewise, pg_stat_walwriter leads to misunderstanding because its
information is not limited to WAL writer.
How about simply pg_stat_wal? In the future, we may want to include WAL reads
in this view, e.g. reading undo logs in zheap.
Sounds reasonable.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
