At Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:27:25 +0530, Amul Sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > + smgrwrite(RelationGetSmgr(index), INIT_FORKNUM, > > BLOOM_METAPAGE_BLKNO, > > (char *) metapage, true); > > - log_newpage(&index->rd_smgr->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM, > > + log_newpage(&(RelationGetSmgr(index))->smgr_rnode.node, > > INIT_FORKNUM, > > > > At the log_newpage, index is guaranteed to have rd_smgr. So I prefer > > to leave the line alone.. I don't mind other sccessive calls if any > > since what I don't like is the notation there. > > > > Perhaps, isn't that bad. It is good to follow the practice of using > RelationGetSmgr() for rd_smgr access, IMHO.
I don't mind RelationGetSmgr(index)->smgr_rnode alone or &variable->member alone and there's not the previous call to RelationGetSmgr just above. How about using a temporary variable? SMgrRelation srel = RelationGetSmgr(index); smgrwrite(srel, ...); log_newpage(srel->..); > > > P.S. commitfest entry https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/3084/ > > > > Isn't this a kind of open item? > > > > Sorry, I didn't get you. Do I need to move this to some other bucket? As discussed in the other branch, I agree that it is registered to the next CF, not registered as an open items of this cycle. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
