The order of columns about WAL activity in pg_stat_statements
Hi,
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/pgstatstatements.html
In pg_stat_statements docs, the columns about WAL activity are put
in the table in the order of wal_bytes, wal_records and wal_fpi. But
in the definition of pg_stat_statements view, wal_bytes is put last.
So I think that it's better to reorder those columns in a consistent
with the view definition. Patch attached. Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Attachments:
pgss_docs.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=pgss_docs.patch; x-mac-creator=0; x-mac-type=0Download+9-9
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
In pg_stat_statements docs, the columns about WAL activity are put
in the table in the order of wal_bytes, wal_records and wal_fpi. But
in the definition of pg_stat_statements view, wal_bytes is put last.
So I think that it's better to reorder those columns in a consistent
with the view definition. Patch attached. Thought?
I already fixed this in my pending patch to restructure the catalog
docs [1]/messages/by-id/14810.1589128043@sss.pgh.pa.us.
regards, tom lane
On 2020/05/14 0:41, Tom Lane wrote:
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> writes:
In pg_stat_statements docs, the columns about WAL activity are put
in the table in the order of wal_bytes, wal_records and wal_fpi. But
in the definition of pg_stat_statements view, wal_bytes is put last.
So I think that it's better to reorder those columns in a consistent
with the view definition. Patch attached. Thought?I already fixed this in my pending patch to restructure the catalog
docs [1].
Sounds nice. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION