Re: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment
Date
Msg-id 20230726205031.GD3310393@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment  (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>)
Responses Re: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment
List pgsql-hackers
Okay, now looking at the patch...

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>   * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single Relation
> - * reference, so that we only need to open pg_relation once per transaction.
> + * reference, so that we only need to open pg_class once per transaction.
>   * To avoid problems when the first such reference occurs inside a
>   * subtransaction, we execute a slightly klugy maneuver to assign ownership of
>   * the Relation reference to TopTransactionResourceOwner.

Hm.  Are you sure this is actually referring to pg_class?  It seems
unlikely given pg_relation was renamed 14 years before this comment was
added, and the code appears to be ensuring that pg_largeobject and its
index are opened at most once per transaction.  I couldn't find the
original thread for this comment, unfortunately, but ISTM we might want to
replace "pg_relation" with "them" instead.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: Row pattern recognition
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: incremental-checkopints