Hi, On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > The scan only performs one backend local bool write per pending entry, so > > this > > is probably negligible compared to the actual flush work. A pass generation > > could avoid the extra scan, but I'm not sure that would be worth the > > additional > > complexity. > > > > What do you think? > > > Even so, I think the pass-generation approach is the better idea here. It's > slightly more code, but it avoids the extra full-list reset pass. I will > feel > better with the generational counter.
Thanks! The generation counter approach makes sense to me, it avoids the extra reset scan. I just have 1 minor comment related to the tests: === 1 +CREATE TABLE trunc_stats_test5(id serial); I think it's related DROP is missing. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
