Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 10:35:33AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 05:36:57PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > + <structfield>count</structfield> <type>bigint</type> > > + </para> > > + <para> > > + Number of tracked entries for this kind. For fixed-amount > > kinds, this is > > + always 1. For variable-numbered kinds, this is the number of > > objects > > + currently tracked. <literal>NULL</literal> if the kind does not > > track > > + entry counts. > > + </para> > > + </entry> > > > > I think this should be 0 for all kinds by default. Only ever > 0 for > > variable-numbered > > kinds with entry tracking enabled. No NULLs. The fields should be called > > "entry_count" instead of "count". We should update the documentation to > > reflect that as well. That seems easier to query than having mixed NULLs and > > numbers. > > IMO, in this case, NULL should be a synonym of "I don't know", which > is what entry_count set to false means. 0 means "I know, there is no > data". I'd be OK with dropping the part about fixed-sized stats where > we enforce 1, and use NULL instead, though.
+1, that's also my opinion [1]. [1]: https://postgr.es/m/ajtroNXfBS/ldtNZ%40bdtpg Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
