On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:20 PM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 17:32, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:16 AM Steven Niu <niushiji@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
