From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pluggable cumulative statistics |
Date: | 2024-07-09 05:23:03 |
Message-ID: | ZozJN1DMx2BMVhpH@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:45:05AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 07:22:32AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Yeah, what I meant to say is that one could think for example that's the
> > PgStatShared_Archiver size while in fact it's the PgStat_ArchiverStats size.
> > I think it's more confusing when writing the stats. Here we are manipulating
> > "snapshot" and "snapshot" offsets. It was not that confusing when reading as we
> > are manipulating "shmem" and "shared" offsets.
> >
> > As I said, the code is fully correct, that's just the wording here that sounds
> > weird to me in the "snapshot" context.
>
> After sleeping on it, I can see your point. If we were to do the
> (shared_data_len -> stats_data_len) switch, could it make sense to
> rename shared_data_off to stats_data_off to have a better symmetry?
> This one is the offset of the stats data in a shmem entry, so perhaps
> shared_data_off is OK, but it feels a bit inconsistent as well.
Agree that if we were to rename one of them then the second one should be
renamed to.
I gave a second thought on it, and I think that this is the "data" part that lead
to the confusion (as too generic), what about?
shared_data_len -> shared_stats_len
shared_data_off -> shared_stats_off
That looks ok to me even in the snapshot context (shared is fine after all
because that's where the stats come from).
Attached a patch proposal doing so.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Renaming-two-fields-in-PgStat_KindInfo.patch | text/x-diff | 9.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-07-09 06:01:33 | Re: walsender.c comment with no context is hard to understand |
Previous Message | Masahiro.Ikeda | 2024-07-09 05:19:49 | RE: Is it expected behavior index only scan shows "OPERATOR(pg_catalog." for EXPLAIN? |