On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 7:41 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 12:32:19AM -0500, Reid Thompson wrote:
> > @@ -32,6 +33,12 @@ typedef enum BackendState
> > STATE_DISABLED
> > } BackendState;
> >
> > +/* Enum helper for reporting memory allocated bytes */
> > +enum allocation_direction
> > +{
> > + DECREASE = -1,
> > + INCREASE = 1,
> > +};
>
> BTW, these should have some kind of prefix, like PG_ALLOC_* to avoid
> causing the same kind of problem for someone else that another header
> caused for you by defining something somewhere called IGNORE (ignore
> what, I don't know). The other problem was probably due to a define,
> though. Maybe instead of an enum, the function should take a boolean.
>
> I still wonder whether there needs to be a separate CF entry for the
> 0001 patch. One issue is that there's two different lists of people
> involved in the threads.
>
> --
> Justin
>
>
> I am a bit curious: why is the allocation_direction enum needed ?
pgstat_report_allocated_bytes() can be given the amount (either negative or
positive) to adjust directly.
Cheers
