On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:19 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think directly using smgrcreate() is a better idea instead of first > registering and then unregistering it. I have made that change in > the attached patch. After this change now we can merge creating the > MAIN_FORKNUM also in the loop below where we are creating other > fork[1] with one extra condition but I think current code is in more > sync with the other code where we are doing the similar things so I > have not merged it in the loop. Please let me know if you think > otherwise.
Generally I think our practice is that we do the main fork unconditionally (because it should always be there) and the others only if they exist. I suggest that you make this consistent with that, but you could do it like if (forkNum != MAIN_FORKNUM && !smgrexists(...)) continue if that seems nicer. Do you think that this version handles pending syncs correctly? I think perhaps that is overlooked. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
