On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:03 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:31:29 +0000, "shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com" <shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote in
> > Thanks for your reply. I agree that's expensive. Attach a new patch which adds a
> > static boolean to avoid duplicate registration.
>
> Thank you for the patch. It is exactly what I had in my mind. But now
> that I've had a chance to mull it over, I came to think it might be
> better to register the callbacks at one place. I'm thinking we could
> create a new function called register_callbacks() or something and
> move all the calls to CacheRegisterSyscacheCallback() into that. What
> do you think about that refactoring?
>
> I guess you could say that that refactoring somewhat weakens the
> connection or dependency between init_rel_sync_cache and
> rel_sync_cache_relation_cb, but anyway the callback works even if
> RelationSyncCache is not around.
>
If you are going to do that, then won't just copying the
CacheRegisterSyscacheCallback(PUBLICATIONOID... into function
init_rel_sync_cache() be effectively the same as doing that?
Then almost nothing else to do...e.g. no need for a new extra static
boolean if static RelationSyncCache is acting as the one-time guard
anyway.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
