Re: Remove fcinfo from statistics update internal functions

On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 4:09 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 02:35:53PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > How about setting those parameters as well, as we did before, because
> > we might use them in *_statistics_update_internal() in the future, as
> > I said upthread? IOW: I still don't think it's a good idea to
> > complicate the core code just for those parameters in the FDW case. I
> > think that that would just make the version diff large and
> > back-patching hard.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure that this is correct with a v19 in mind.

> Even with my disagreements, it is pretty clear that you do not like
> these improvements, so I'll revert the refactoring piece. I am not
> planning to argue much for the FDW part (honestly I don't like the way
> this has been coded, and I regret not having spent a couple of cycles
> looking at what was happening, but I did not commit that). For the
> stats part, though, I am going to be on standby and more careful for
> any changes suggested.

Thanks for the consideration! I'm open to comments/suggestions, but
I'm not 100% sure that the changes in the FDW part are really
improvements.

> Another part that I do not find acceptable is the "unused" arguments
> based on the StatsInfo. That's overlapping the import and restore
> bits, IMO. That part alone makes the 0001 proposed upthread a no-go
> here.

I like the 0001 patch (except the handling of the "unused" arguments).
Code changes made by it is really minimized, so it won't make
back-patching hard, which is good. Thanks for working on the patch!

As for the handling, I think we should just set the arguments as well,
as we did before, for the possible use in
*_statistics_update_internal() in the future, as I said above. I
think that that is more future-proof.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita