Hi, On 2022-04-04 15:24:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > Replacing the existing assert(!kind->fixed_amount) with > assert(!kind->accessed_across_databases) produces the same result as the > later presently implies the former.
I wasn't proposing to replace, but to add... > Now I start to dislike the behavioral aspect of the attribute and would > rather just name it: kind->is_cluster_scoped (or something else that is > descriptive of the stat category itself, not how it is used) I'm not in love with the name either. But cluster is just a badly overloaded word :(. system_wide? Or invert it and say: database_scoped? I think I like the latter. > Then reorganize the Kind documentation to note and emphasize these two > primary descriptors: > variable, which can be cluster or database scoped > fixed, which are cluster scoped by definition Hm. There's not actually that much difference between cluster/non-cluster wide scope for most of the system. I'm not strongly against, but I'm also not really seeing the benefit. > (if this is true...but given this is an optimization category I'm thinking > maybe it doesn't actually matter...) It is true. Not sure what you mean with "optimization category"? Greetings, Andres Freund