On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 4:35 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 1:41 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Since other statistics counter names are camel cases I think it's > > > better to follow that for the new counter. > > > > Makes sense, done with memoryLimitHits in v2 attached (that's the only > > change > > as compared with v1). > > > > The memory_limit_hits doesn't go well with the other names in the > view. Can we consider memory_exceeded_count? I find > memory_exceeded_count (or memory_exceeds_count) more clear and > matching with the existing counters. Also, how about keeping it > immediately after slot_name in the view? Keeping it in the end after > total_bytes seems out of place. >
Since fields like spill_txns, spill_bytes, and stream_txns also talk about exceeding 'logical_decoding_work_mem', my preference would be to place this new field immediately after these spill and stream fields (and before total_bytes). If not this, then as Amit suggested, immediately before all these fields. Other options for name could be 'mem_limit_exceeded_count' or 'mem_limit_hit_count' thanks Shveta
