Re: [Patch] remove duplicated smgrclose
От | Junwang Zhao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Patch] remove duplicated smgrclose |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEG8a3JSfpyKPEiJ7fsxuhxh3oCSMLW2=P9HZ5LWEiNEoyRkKw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [Patch] remove duplicated smgrclose (Steven Niu <niushiji@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Hi, Masahiko > > Thanks for your comments! I understand your concern as you stated. > However, my initial patch was split into two parts as Kirill suggested. > This thread is about the first part. Another part is here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5149/ > Or you can take a look at the v2-0001-remove-duplicated-smgrclose.patch in this thread for the complete change. > > I think either we review the v2-patch, or review the both 5149 and 5196 CFs, for my complete change. > There should be no missing operations. @@ -482,13 +482,11 @@ smgrdounlinkall(SMgrRelation *rels, int nrels, bool isRedo) for (i = 0; i < nrels; i++) { RelFileLocatorBackend rlocator = rels[i]->smgr_rlocator; - int which = rels[i]->smgr_which; rlocators[i] = rlocator; /* Close the forks at smgr level */ - for (forknum = 0; forknum <= MAX_FORKNUM; forknum++) - smgrsw[which].smgr_close(rels[i], forknum); + smgrclose(rels[i]); } Yeah, you are adjusting the behavior by moving the `smgrclose` operation after the `smgrdounlinkall` to the `smgrdounlinkall` function itself. Seems no missing operations in v2-patch. Thanks. > > Please let me know if you have more comments. > > Best Regards, > Steven -- Regards Junwang Zhao
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: