> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 01:04:38PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > One concern I have is the name of the new function.
> > pgstat_prep_pending() sounds a bit incomplete. Would a name such as
> > pgstat_prep_pending_for_entry_ref() be clearer?
>
> Hmm. pgstat_prep_pending_for_entry_ref() would work here for the
> name.
I think pgstat_prep_pending_from_entry_ref() is better that _for_.
> Regarding the new function's comment, perhaps it could be phrased
> similarly to that of pgstat_prep_pending_entry(), for example:
> > Prepare the given entry to receive pending stats, if not already done.
This simple comment is sufficient. fixed.
> Finally, pgstat_get_entry_ref() does not return NULL when create is
> true, but the new function itself does not enforce that assumption. It
> might be worth adding an Assert(entry_ref != NULL), in addition to the
> assertion on flush_pending_cb.
Done.
See the attached.
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
