>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Apr-06, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> >
> > > I have reviewed the code. Here are a few minor comments.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > +void
> > > +pgstat_report_queryid(uint64 queryId, bool force)
> > > +{
> > > + volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry;
> > > +
> > > + if (!beentry)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * if track_activities is disabled, st_queryid should already have
> been
> > > + * reset
> > > + */
> > > + if (!pgstat_track_activities)
> > > + return;
> > >
> > > The above two conditions can be clubbed together in a single condition.
> >
> > I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put the assignment *after* we
> > have checked the second condition.
> All other pgstat_report_* functions do the assignment before doing any
> test on
> beentry and/or pgstat_track_activities, I think we should keep this code
> consistent.
I agree about this.
Thanks and Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:18 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Apr-06, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> >
> > > I have reviewed the code. Here are a few minor comments.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > +void
> > > +pgstat_report_queryid(uint64 queryId, bool force)
> > > +{
> > > + volatile PgBackendStatus *beentry = MyBEEntry;
> > > +
> > > + if (!beentry)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * if track_activities is disabled, st_queryid should already have
> been
> > > + * reset
> > > + */
> > > + if (!pgstat_track_activities)
> > > + return;
> > >
> > > The above two conditions can be clubbed together in a single condition.
> >
> > I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to put the assignment *after* we
> > have checked the second condition.
>
> All other pgstat_report_* functions do the assignment before doing any
> test on
> beentry and/or pgstat_track_activities, I think we should keep this code
> consistent.
>
