On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 17:32, Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:16 AM Steven Niu <niush...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, hackers, > > > > I think there may be some duplicated codes. > > Function smgrDoPendingDeletes() calls both smgrdounlinkall() and > > smgrclose(). > > But both functions would close SMgrRelation object, it's dupliacted > > behavior? > > > > So I make this patch. Could someone take a look at it? > > > > Thanks for your help, > > Steven > > > > From Highgo.com > > > > > You change LGTM, but the patch seems not to be applied to HEAD, > I generate the attached v2 using `git format` with some commit message. > > -- > Regards > Junwang Zhao
Hi all! This change looks good to me. However, i have an objection to these lines from v2: > /* Close the forks at smgr level */ > - for (forknum = 0; forknum <= MAX_FORKNUM; forknum++) > - smgrsw[which].smgr_close(rels[i], forknum); > + smgrclose(rels[i]); Why do we do this? This seems to be an unrelated change given thread $subj. This is just a pure refactoring job, which deserves a separate patch. There is similar coding in smgrdestroy function: ``` for (forknum = 0; forknum <= MAX_FORKNUM; forknum++) smgrsw[reln->smgr_which].smgr_close(reln, forknum); ``` So, I feel like these two places should be either changed together or not be altered at all. And is it definitely a separate change. -- Best regards, Kirill Reshke
