MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAP53PkzdBK8VJ1fS4AZ481LgMN8f9mJiC39ZRHqkFUSYq6KWmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53Pkw1RpyAVsvJwUOMgGnVoQUibMk+EB+w-8WqY8kzsC4WjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53Pkz-BmkLFJ+sAcr8H1sBPtWp8WYGzorH9yw+W5Tn0yH0sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <mflexfbmbkmql5snr322ldu72dfnjr2dntxx3ippaz4tcso7vl@zmxxgiws3qux>
 <CAP53PkzZ3UotnRrrnXWAv=F4avRq9MQ8zU+bxoN9tpovEu6fGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <k2uxwancbi5blb2duny3kbuz667m47hqc4jv7xstlx3yyzcd3a@fjqww6avalt3>
 <CAHut+Put94CTpjQsqOJHdHkgJ2ZXq+qVSfMEcmDKLiWLW-hPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkyOvXC7pWAiamvWth_JNeb=isrxX+PJT0pw_Hw5Czzf+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkzGbyeJMLDAcvMRgzXPXYsYXZr3SBg0UwhfkYjqu8oK_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkxrmpECzVFpeeEEHDGe6u625s+YkmVv5-gw3L_NDSfbiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFMon7XcTv+PKXB_ANUJ86k9VmJnx7BoW2q1m5Z2QQVZQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkxAS-rpp0kcOjg--q5NVNnRC+0kh1+gB8gnRNqacTqF5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN4CZFNuxMqnmtujzemZ1i7hzYkaLD+BWPNq8tFXoPWp5R4How@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53PkxFP7i7-wy98ZmEJ11edYq-RrPvJoa4kzGhBBjERA4Nyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <06086cb4-881b-4f5a-96af-f275220ff52d@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: <06086cb4-881b-4f5a-96af-f275220ff52d@vondra.me>
From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt.parragi@percona.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 06:21:18 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAN4CZFOdYhRfecTJjJZCwHtS-gzpSJ16YLQ7Wh0bXrg0=8keOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
Cc: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN4CZFOdYhRfecTJjJZCwHtS-gzpSJ16YLQ7Wh0bXrg0%3D8keOw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

+ TriggerInstrumentation *ti = rInfo->ri_TrigInstrument;
+
+ if (ti && (ti->instr.need_bufusage || ti->instr.need_walusage))
+ InstrAccum(instr_stack.current, &ti->instr);

I think there's one more bug here, isn't ti an array? This seems to
only process the first entry, not all of them.

+InstrPopStackTo(Instrumentation *prev)
+{
+ Assert(instr_stack.stack_size > 0);
+ instr_stack.stack_size--;
+ instr_stack.current = prev;
+}
+

Shouldn't this have the same additional assertion as InstrPopStack?