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