| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: question about pending updates in pgstat_report_inj |
| Date: | 2025-09-16 02:29:58 |
| Message-ID: | aMjLpiX6reRycFVm@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 05:33:45PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I think it's better to use ->pending here, since this is referenced
> as an example and most real-world cases will likely want to use
> ->pending for performance reasons.
Yes, it should use the pending entry. b757abefc041 did not get that
completely right.
The purpose of this code is also to serve as a template, so better
that it does the correct thing.
How about renaming "statent" to "pending" in pgstat_report_inj(), as
well? That would be a bit more consistent with the subscription stat
case, at least.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-injection_points-Fix-incrementation-of-variable-numb.patch | text/x-diff | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2025-09-16 02:46:44 | Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-16 02:08:40 | Re: BUG #18959: Name collisions of expression indexes during parallel Index creations on a pratitioned table. |