Horton
Menu

Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage

Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>

View thread
From: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-01-15T22:34:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> I happened to be reading the code in this recent push [1] and saw this
> new macro:
>
> +#define INSTR_TIME_LT(x,y) \
> + ((x).ticks > (y).ticks)
>
> Is that macro name OK? It seemed backwards to me. Shouldn't it be
> called INSTR_TIME_GT because it is checking that x is "Greater Than"
> y?

Oh yeah, good catch. I think I must have thought of "larger than"
instead of "less than".

I think adjusting that to INSTR_TIME_GT makes sense, and is consistent
with how "lt" and "gt" is used elsewhere in the source.

Thanks,
Lukas

--
Lukas Fittl

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. instrumentation: Allocate query level instrumentation in ExecutorStart

  2. instrumentation: Move ExecProcNodeInstr to allow inlining

  3. instrumentation: Separate per-node logic from other uses

  4. instrumentation: Separate trigger logic from other uses

  5. instrumentation: Rename INSTR_TIME_LT macro to INSTR_TIME_GT

  6. instrumentation: Keep time fields as instrtime, convert in callers