Re: Unnecessary smgropen in {heapam_relation,index}_copy_data?
| От | Aleksander Alekseev | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Unnecessary smgropen in {heapam_relation,index}_copy_data? | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAJ7c6TMNwD8Hi1DCNNBqE0LpmVWaGXdbr65T22XcxAotewyFcg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Unnecessary smgropen in {heapam_relation,index}_copy_data? (Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>) | 
| Ответы | Re: Unnecessary smgropen in {heapam_relation,index}_copy_data? | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi, > I find heapam_relation_copy_data() and index_copy_data() have the following code: > > dstrel = smgropen(*newrlocator, rel->rd_backend); > > ... > > RelationCreateStorage(*newrlocator, rel->rd_rel->relpersistence, true); > > The smgropen() is also called by RelationCreateStorage(), why should we call > smgropen() explicitly here? > > I try to remove the smgropen(), and all tests passed. That's a very good question. Note that the second argument of smgropen() used to create dstrel changes after applying your patch. I'm not 100% sure whether this is significant or not. I added your patch to the nearest open commitfest so that we will not lose it: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/47/4794/ -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: