Hi, I did another read through the series. I do have some minor changes, but they're minor. I think this is ready for commit. I plan to start pushing tomorrow.
The changes I made are: - the tablespace test changes didn't quite work in isolation / needed a bit of polishing - moved the tablespace changes to later in the series - split the tests out of the commit adding the view into its own commit - minor code formatting things (e.g. didn't like nested for()s without {}) On 2023-01-25 16:56:17 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Tue, 24 Jan 2023 14:35:12 -0800, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote > in > > > + write_chunk_s(fpout, &pgStatLocal.snapshot.io); > > > + if (!read_chunk_s(fpin, &shmem->io.stats)) > > > > > > The names of the functions hardly make sense alone to me. How about > > > write_struct()/read_struct()? (I personally prefer to use > > > write_chunk() directly..) > > > > That's not related to this patch - there's several existing callers for > > it. And write_struct wouldn't be better imo, because it's not just for > > structs. > > Hmm. Then what the "_s" stands for? Size. It's a macro that just forwards to read_chunk()/write_chunk(). > > > > + Number of read operations in units of > > > > <varname>op_bytes</varname>. > > > > > > I may be the only one who see the name as umbiguous between "total > > > number of handled bytes" and "bytes hadled at an operation". Can't it > > > be op_blocksize or just block_size? > > > > > > + b.io_object, > > > + b.io_context, > > > > No, block wouldn't be helpful - we'd like to use this for something that > > isn't > > uniform blocks. > > What does the field show in that case? The mean of operation size? Or > one row per opration size? If the former, the name looks somewhat > wrong. If the latter, block_size seems making sense. 1, so that it's clear that the rest are in bytes. Greetings, Andres Freund