Re: ResourceOwner refactoring
| От | Zhihong Yu | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: ResourceOwner refactoring | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CALNJ-vTh=O0O0ENOMC4uGd1gbzcnHaXTi8W4W=qri5Na3-LMKw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: ResourceOwner refactoring (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: ResourceOwner refactoring
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:26 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
Thanks for having a look!
On 14/07/2021 18:18, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> For the loop over the hash:
>
> + for (int idx = 0; idx < capacity; idx++)
> {
> - if (olditemsarr[i] != resarr->invalidval)
> - ResourceArrayAdd(resarr, olditemsarr[i]);
> + while (owner->hash[idx].kind != NULL &&
> + owner->hash[idx].kind->phase == phase)
> ...
> + } while (capacity != owner->capacity);
>
> Since the phase variable doesn't seem to change for the while loop, I
> wonder what benefit the while loop has (since the release is governed by
> phase).
Hmm, the phase variable doesn't change, but could the element at
'owner->hash[idx]' change? I'm not sure about that. The loop is supposed
to handle the case that the hash table grows; could that replace the
element at 'owner->hash[idx]' with something else, with different phase?
The check is very cheap, so I'm inclined to keep it to be sure.
- Heikki
Hi,
Agreed that ```owner->hash[idx].kind->phase == phase``` can be kept.
I just wonder if we should put limit on the number of iterations for the while loop.
Maybe add a bool variable indicating that kind->ReleaseResource(value) is called in the inner loop.
If there is no releasing when the inner loop finishes, we can come out of the while loop.
Cheers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: