On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-Apr-06, Nitin Jadhav wrote: > > > I have reviewed the code. Here are a few minor comments. > > > > 1. > > +void > > +pgstat_report_queryid(uint64 queryId, bool force) > > +{ > > + volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry; > > + > > + if (!beentry) > > + return; > > + > > + /* > > + * if track_activities is disabled, st_queryid should already have been > > + * reset > > + */ > > + if (!pgstat_track_activities) > > + return; > > > > The above two conditions can be clubbed together in a single condition. > > I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put the assignment *after* we > have checked the second condition. All other pgstat_report_* functions do the assignment before doing any test on beentry and/or pgstat_track_activities, I think we should keep this code consistent.
I agree about this.
Thanks and Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:18 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-Apr-06, Nitin Jadhav wrote: > > > I have reviewed the code. Here are a few minor comments. > > > > 1. > > +void > > +pgstat_report_queryid(uint64 queryId, bool force) > > +{ > > + volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry; > > + > > + if (!beentry) > > + return; > > + > > + /* > > + * if track_activities is disabled, st_queryid should already have been > > + * reset > > + */ > > + if (!pgstat_track_activities) > > + return; > > > > The above two conditions can be clubbed together in a single condition. > > I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put the assignment *after* we > have checked the second condition.
All other pgstat_report_* functions do the assignment before doing any test on beentry and/or pgstat_track_activities, I think we should keep this code consistent.
