On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> ... You might want to revisit the issue of how the new >> columns in pg_stat_statements are named, as well. I am not sure I'm >> happy with that, but neither am I sure that I know what I'd like >> better. It's not too clear that the timing is specifically for data >> block reads and writes, for example. > > Well, the names "time_read" and "time_write" are certainly out of step > with every other stats view in the system; everyplace else, such columns > are named "something_time" (and even in this view itself the other > timing column is "total_time", not "time_total"). So that's got to > change. We could just reverse the word order to "read_time" and > "write_time", or we could do something like "buf_read_time" or > "data_read_time". IIUC block_read_time/block_write_time in the > pg_stat_database view are database-wide totals for the same numbers, so > perhaps the pg_stat_statements column names should be consistent with > those. I am kinda wondering though why those columns spell out "block" > where every single other column name in the stats views uses the > abbreviation "blk".
I like the idea of including the word block in there. I don't think it was probably a terribly good idea to abbreviate that to blk everywhere, but at this point it's probably better to be consistent, sigh. As for track_iotiming -> track_io_timing, I'm fine with that as well. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
