On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 7:39 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 06:13:33PM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > > Could you please share your thoughts on this? Your inputs would help > > us determine the next steps - whether we should proceed with renaming, > > and if so, what names you would suggest, or whether we should leave > > things as they are. > > FWIW, I still find the use of _wal_ in these fields rather confusing, > and they add more inconsistencies with the internal structures of > reorderbuffer.c. The goal is to add a field to track the number of > bytes sent downstream. Hence, I would suggest to give up on the > rename, add the new field, perhaps consider improving the docs for the > existing fields to tell to which context these numbers refer to, then > call it a day.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Michael, I had a similar idea in mind. I'll go ahead and implement these changes and come up with the new patches. Now since this is purely additive (new columns only), I'm thinking a single patch might suffice, Or maybe, we could split it into two: one that corrects the existing documentation and another that introduces the new fields for displaying downstream bytes sent and some other information related to this. -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma.
