On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:35 PM Steven Niu <niush...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Junwang, Kirill, > > The split work has been done. I created a new patch for removing redundant > smgrclose() function as attached. > Please help review it.
Patch looks good, actually you can make the refactoring code as v3-0002-xxx by using: git format-patch -2 -v 3 Another kind reminder: Do not top-post when you reply ;) > > Thanks, > Steven > > Steven Niu <niush...@gmail.com> 于2024年8月12日周一 18:11写道： >> >> Kirill, >> >> Good catch! >> I will split the patch into two to cover both cases. >> >> Thanks, >> Steven >> >> >> Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> 于2024年8月9日周五 18:19写道： >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:20 PM Kirill Reshke <reshkekir...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > 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. >>> >>> Yeah, I tend to agree with you, maybe we should split the patch >>> into two. >>> >>> Steven, could you do this? >>> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Best regards, >>> > Kirill Reshke >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards >>> Junwang Zhao -- Regards Junwang Zhao
