On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:48 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Euler Taveira > > > <euler.tave...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Few comments: > > > 1. > > > - int64 wal_num_fpw; /* # of WAL full page image records generated */ > > > + int64 wal_num_fpw; /* # of WAL full page images generated */ > > > > > > Let's change comment as " /* # of WAL full page writes generated */" > > > to be consistent with other places like instrument.h. Also, make a > > > similar change at other places if required. > > > > Agreed. That's pg_stat_statements.c and instrument.h. I'll send a > > patch once we reach consensus with the rest of the comments. > > > > Would you like to send a consolidated patch that includes Euler's > suggestion and Justin's patch (by making changes for points we > discussed.)? I think we can keep the point related to number of > spaces before each field open?
Sure, I'll take care of that tomorrow! > > > 2. > > > <entry> > > > - Total amount of WAL bytes generated by the statement > > > + Total number of WAL bytes generated by the statement > > > </entry> > > > > > > I feel the previous text was better as this field can give us the size > > > of WAL with which we can answer "how much WAL data is generated by a > > > particular statement?". Julien, do you have any thoughts on this? > > > > I also prefer "amount" as it feels more natural. > > > > As we see no other opinion on this matter, we can use "amount" here. Ok.