Hi Michael, On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 6:28 PM Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:47 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 09:10:45PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > > It might be better to just use the phrase "This number ..." since the > > > earlier sentence mentions it as "number". I have made that change in > > > my repository. Will send it with the next version of patchset. > > > > I have studied this thread, and can get behind the idea of adding the > > number of bytes sent to the output plugin at this level. > > > > However, I think that patch 0001 should be split into two parts, > > because it is doing two separate things, not one: > > - One patch for the rename of the existing fields total_txns and > > total_bytes to respectively total_wal_txns and total_wal_bytes, so as > > it becomes possible to make the distinction between the stats data > > coming from WAL. (The suggested rename was a bit confusing for me > > first, FWIW, when I read total_wal_bytes, my mind understood that as a > > total number of WAL generated, even if I get that that it comes from > > an amount of WAL data processed when decoding transactions. Not an > > objection, just a feeling). > > - A second patch to introduce the new field for the number of bytes > > sent to the output plugin. > > > > I am open to other suggestions. Since the bytes in total_bytes and > sent_bytes refer to different set of bytes, it was thought to be > better to rename total_bytes and hence total_txns. But then > stream_bytes, spill_bytes too come from WAL and they are not renamed > right now. So there's already some awkwardness. I also see that wal in > the name can be confusing. I thought of using "reordered" instead of > "wal" but reorder buffer is an internal concept. If we change the > reorder buffer mechanism tomorrow, we will need to change the name of > the field. So we discarded that. I am wondering whether we should just > leave the name as is and rely on documentation to clarify the > difference. What do you think? >
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. -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma.
