Hi,
Thanks for patch. I have tested both patches and they work as per design.
My +1 for v1, it is much cleaner approach and has properly named
functions whereas in v2 it is not.
Injection points is documented, if so, doc patch is missing.
Regards,
Yogesh
On 11/20/24 12:13, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 05:45:55PM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>> I think this is a good idea. +1 for the $SUBJECT.
> Thanks for looking at it!
>
>> There are duplicated codes in the injection_stats_fixed.c file. Do you
>> think that 'modifying existing functions to take an argument to
>> differentiate whether the kind is default or no-write' would be
>> better?
> Some of the new functions are callbacks so we don't have the control on the
> parameters list that the core is expecting.
>
> It remains:
>
> pgstat_register_inj_fixed_no_write()
> pgstat_report_inj_fixed_no_write()
> injection_points_stats_fixed_no_write()
>
> for which I think we could add an extra "write_to_file" argument on their original
> counterparts.
>
> Not sure how many code reduction we would get, so out of curiosity I did the
> exercice in v2 attached and that gives us:
>
> v1:
> 8 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> v2:
> 8 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> I don't have a strong opinion for this particular case here (I think the code
> is harder to read but yeah there is some code reduction): so I'm fine with
> v2 too.
>
> Regards,
>
