> On Dec 16, 2025, at 17:45, Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> 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 guess you don’t have to. I search over the code base, and cannot find a
“const Ration” parameter. And actually, Relation is typedef of “structure
RelationData *”, so if you want to make it const, then you have to do “const
structure RelationData *rel”, because “const Relation rel” won’t behave as your
intention.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
