Re: Change the signature of pgstat_report_vacuum() so that it's passed a Relation

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2025-12-17 02:48:44
Message-ID: aUIaDDEiz8khGy30@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 09:55:09AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-12-16 09:45:34 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I think const markings for things like this just means more code churn or ugly
> casts when it inevitably ends up not working at some point.

I'm unconvinced as well by the addition of some consts here, so I've
applied v1.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-12-17 03:04:53 Re: [PATCH] Allow complex data for GUC extra.
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-12-17 01:57:14 Re: [PATCH] Fix ARM64/MSVC atomic memory ordering issues on Win11 by adding explicit DMB ?barriers