At Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:56:18 +0530, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:25 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:45:45PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > We forgot this patch earlier in the commitfest. Do people think we
> > > should still get it in on this cycle? I'm +1 on that, since it's a
> > > safety feature poised to prevent more bugs than it's likely to
> > > introduce.
> >
> > No objections from here to do that now even after feature freeze. I
> > also wonder, while looking at that, why you don't just remove the last
> > call within src/backend/catalog/heap.c. This way, nobody is tempted
> > to use RelationOpenSmgr() anymore, and it could just be removed from
> > rel.h.
>
> Agree, did the same in the attached version, thanks.
+ smgrwrite(RelationGetSmgr(index), INIT_FORKNUM, BLOOM_METAPAGE_BLKNO,
(char *) metapage, true);
- log_newpage(&index->rd_smgr->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM,
+ log_newpage(&(RelationGetSmgr(index))->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM,
At the log_newpage, index is guaranteed to have rd_smgr. So I prefer
to leave the line alone.. I don't mind other sccessive calls if any
since what I don't like is the notation there.
> P.S. commitfest entry https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3084/
Isn't this a kind of open item?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center