| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Change the signature of pgstat_report_vacuum() so that it's passed a Relation |
| Date: | 2025-12-16 09:45:34 |
| Message-ID: | aUEqPrL22x5ELRk4@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 04:39:05PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 06:49:13AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > While working on relfilenode statistics, Andres suggested that we pass the Relation
> > to pgstat_report_vacuum() (instead of the parameters inherited from the Relation,
> > (See [1])).
> >
> > That looks like a good idea to me as it reduces the number of parameters and it's
> > consistent with pgstat_report_analyze().
>
> Fine by me.
Thank you both for looking at it!
I'm just thinking that we could mark the new "Relation rel" parameter as a
const one. Indeed we are in a "report" function that only makes use of the
Relation as read only.
But, we can't do the same for pgstat_report_analyze() because pgstat_should_count_relation()
can modify the relation through pgstat_assoc_relation(). So I'm inclined to
let it as in v1. Thoughts?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-12-16 09:56:20 | Re: Change the signature of pgstat_report_vacuum() so that it's passed a Relation |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2025-12-16 09:35:03 | Re: Segmentation fault on proc exit after dshash_find_or_insert |