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
