Re: Concerns regarding code in pgstat_backend.c

Started by Michael Paquier2 months ago3 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz

On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 07:11:07AM +0000, Ryo Matsumura (Fujitsu) wrote:

I found the code that is likely to cause bugs in the future. It's not currently a bug.
Should I have misunderstood, please feel free to disregard this email.

Because this is a clear thinko. pgstat_bestart_final() is always a
code path taken after pgstat_beinit() for auxiliary processes and the
rest of the world. I am pretty sure that my intention here was to
use the argument and not MyProcNumber in the function
pgstat_create_backend() because we rely on MyProcNumber to be defined
when the create routine is called, and that's what
pgstat_bestart_final() offers as guarantee, due to pgstat_beinit().

There is no bug currently, but let's clean that up in all the branches
anyway for clarity and any future back-patch. Hence, what do you think
about the attached?
--
Michael

Attachments:

pgstat-backend-procnum.patchtext/plain; charset=us-asciiDownload+1-1
#2Ryo Matsumura (Fujitsu)
matsumura.ryo@fujitsu.com
In reply to: Michael Paquier (#1)
RE: Concerns regarding code in pgstat_backend.c

On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 07:34 AM UTC, Michael Paquier wrote:

There is no bug currently, but let's clean that up in all the branches
anyway for clarity and any future back-patch. Hence, what do you think
about the attached?

I think attached code causes no concern.

Best Regards
Ryo Matsumura

#3Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Michael Paquier (#1)

On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 09:02:46AM +0000, Ryo Matsumura (Fujitsu) wrote:

I think attached code causes no concern.

Fixed that while I had my mind on it. Thanks for the report.
--
Michael