>
> Hi, Masahiko
>
> Thanks for your comments! I understand your concern as you stated.
> However, my initial patch was split into two parts as Kirill suggested.
> This thread is about the first part. Another part is here:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5149/
> Or you can take a look at the v2-0001-remove-duplicated-smgrclose.patch in
> this thread for the complete change.
>
> I think either we review the v2-patch, or review the both 5149 and 5196 CFs,
> for my complete change.
> There should be no missing operations.
@@ -482,13 +482,11 @@ smgrdounlinkall(SMgrRelation *rels, int nrels,
bool isRedo)
for (i = 0; i < nrels; i++)
{
RelFileLocatorBackend rlocator = rels[i]->smgr_rlocator;
- int which = rels[i]->smgr_which;
rlocators[i] = rlocator;
/* Close the forks at smgr level */
- for (forknum = 0; forknum <= MAX_FORKNUM; forknum++)
- smgrsw[which].smgr_close(rels[i], forknum);
+ smgrclose(rels[i]);
}
Yeah, you are adjusting the behavior by moving the `smgrclose` operation
after the `smgrdounlinkall` to the `smgrdounlinkall` function itself.
Seems no missing operations in v2-patch. Thanks.
>
> Please let me know if you have more comments.
>
> Best Regards,
> Steven
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
