At Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:11:49 +0900, Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote in > Ah, OK. So your argument is about making even the fast path where an > entry already exists. Indeed that looks like a waste to not do a > separation. I initially thought that this was no big deal, but now I > see your point. Your change makes sense, then.
I agree that this change makes sense. One concern I have is the name of the new function. pgstat_prep_pending() sounds a bit incomplete. Would a name such as pgstat_prep_pending_for_entry_ref() be clearer? Regarding the new function's comment, perhaps it could be phrased similarly to that of pgstat_prep_pending_entry(), for example: > Prepare the given entry to receive pending stats, if not already done. Finally, pgstat_get_entry_ref() does not return NULL when create is true, but the new function itself does not enforce that assumption. It might be worth adding an Assert(entry_ref != NULL), in addition to the assertion on flush_pending_cb. Regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
