On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 08:23:46AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 10:15:52AM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote: >> But I agree that having a macro has more benefits, >> also there already is a check for the 'io_op < IOOP_NUM_TYPES' in the >> pgstat_count_io_op() function. > > Yeah, I think we can remove the "io_op < IOOP_NUM_TYPE" assertion in > pgstat_count_io_op() (but keep this check as part of the macro). > > Appart from the above, LGTM.
Okay, so applied. And I've somewhat managed to fat-finger the business with pgstat_count_io_op() with an incorrect rebase. Will remove in a minute.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
