Hi, On 2022-07-15 11:59:41 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote: > I'm not sure about the idea of prefixing the IOOp and IOPath enums with > Pg_Stat. I could see them being used outside of statistics (though they > are defined in pgstat.h)
+1 > From Andres: > > Quoting me (Melanie): > > > Introduce "IOOp", an IO operation done by a backend, and "IOPath", the > > > location or type of IO done by a backend. For example, the checkpointer > > > may write a shared buffer out. This would be counted as an IOOp write on > > > an IOPath IOPATH_SHARED by BackendType "checkpointer". > > > I'm still not 100% happy with IOPath - seems a bit too easy to confuse > with > > the file path. What about 'origin'? > > I can see the point about IOPATH. > I'm not wild about origin mostly because of the number of O's given that > IO Operation already has two O's. It gets kind of hard to read when > using Pascal Case: IOOrigin and IOOp. > Also, it doesn't totally make sense for alloc. I could be convinced, > though. > > IOSOURCE doesn't have the O problem but does still not make sense for > alloc. I also thought of IOSITE and IOVENUE. I like "source" - not too bothered by the alloc aspect. I can also see "context" working. > > Annoying question: pg_stat_io vs pg_statio? I'd not think of suggesting > the > > latter, except that we already have a bunch of views with that prefix. > > As far as pg_stat_io vs pg_statio, they are the only stats views which > don't have an underscore between stat and the rest of the view name, so > perhaps we should move away from statio to stat_io going forward anyway. > I am imagining adding to them with other iostat type metrics once direct > IO is introduced, so they may well be changing soon anyway. I don't think I have strong opinions on this one. I can see arguments for either naming. Greetings, Andres Freund
