At 2008-07-03 16:36:02 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here's a patch for this.

I reviewed the patch, it basically looks fine. A few quibbles with the
provided documentation:

> +         Reports the number of pages which can be stored within a file 
> segment.  
> +         The total physical size of a segment file in bytes can be 
> determined by multiplying
> +         the <varname>block_size</varname> parameter with 
> <varname>segment_size</varname>.

I would say:

    Reports the number of blocks/pages which can be stored within a file
    segment. The total size of a segment file in bytes is equal to the
    <varname>segment_size</> multiplied by the <varname>block_size</>.

> +         Reports the size of a write ahead log disk block.  It is determined 
> by the value
> +         of <literal>XLOG_BLCKSZ</> when building the server. The default
> +         value is 8192 bytes. <varname>wal_block_size</varname> influences 
> the total physical
> +         size of a write ahead log segment. See <xref
> +         linkend="guc-wal-segment-size"> for more information.
> +        </para>

I'd change "write ahead log disk block" to "WAL disk block". How about
this:

    Reports the size of a WAL disk block, as determined by the value of
    <literal>XLOG_BLCKSZ</> when compiling the server. The default is
    8192 bytes. <varname>wal_block_size</> influences the total size of
    a WAL segment file. See <xref linkend="guc-wal-segment-size"> for
    more information.

> +         Reports the number of pages within a write ahead log segment file. 
> <varname>wal_segment_size</varname> multiplied with 
> <varname>wal_block_size</varname> gives the total physical size of a write 
> ahead
> +         log segment file in bytes.

Again, I'd say "WAL" here instead of "write ahead log", because the full
form is clumsy in context. How about this:

    Reports the number of pages in a WAL segment file. The total size of
    a WAL segment file in bytes is equal to <varname>wal_segment_size</>
    multiplied by <varname>wal_block_size</>.

What do you think?

-- ams

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to