Hi,
On 2025-12-16 09:45:34 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> 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.
-1.
> 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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
