On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:03 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:31:29 +0000, "shiy.f...@fujitsu.com" > <shiy.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote in > > Thanks for your reply. I agree that's expensive. Attach a new patch which > > adds a > > static boolean to avoid duplicate registration. > > Thank you for the patch. It is exactly what I had in my mind. But now > that I've had a chance to mull it over, I came to think it might be > better to register the callbacks at one place. I'm thinking we could > create a new function called register_callbacks() or something and > move all the calls to CacheRegisterSyscacheCallback() into that. What > do you think about that refactoring? > > I guess you could say that that refactoring somewhat weakens the > connection or dependency between init_rel_sync_cache and > rel_sync_cache_relation_cb, but anyway the callback works even if > RelationSyncCache is not around. >
If you are going to do that, then won't just copying the CacheRegisterSyscacheCallback(PUBLICATIONOID... into function init_rel_sync_cache() be effectively the same as doing that? Then almost nothing else to do...e.g. no need for a new extra static boolean if static RelationSyncCache is acting as the one-time guard anyway. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
