Thread: Should smgrdounlink() be removed?

I see that commit 33a94bae605edf3ceda6751916f0b1af3e88630a removed
smgrdounlinkfork() because it was dead code. Should we also remove
smgrdounlink() now? It also appears to be dead code.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:48:35AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> I could not find any code reference to smgrdounlink, I feel it can be
> removed.

The last use of smgrdounlink() was b416691.  I have just looked at
Debian Code Search and github, and could not find a hit with the
function being used in some custom extension code, so it feels like a
safe bet to remove it.
--
Michael

On 2020/05/07 13:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:48:35AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
>> I could not find any code reference to smgrdounlink, I feel it can be
>> removed.
> 
> The last use of smgrdounlink() was b416691.  I have just looked at
> Debian Code Search and github, and could not find a hit with the
> function being used in some custom extension code, so it feels like a
> safe bet to remove it.

+1

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:57:00PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2020/05/07 13:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:48:35AM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
>> > I could not find any code reference to smgrdounlink, I feel it can be
>> > removed.
>>
>> The last use of smgrdounlink() was b416691.  I have just looked at
>> Debian Code Search and github, and could not find a hit with the
>> function being used in some custom extension code, so it feels like a
>> safe bet to remove it.
>
> +1

So this gives the attached.  Any thoughts?
--
Michael

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 4:33 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> So this gives the attached.  Any thoughts?

That seems fine.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:18:52AM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 4:33 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> So this gives the attached.  Any thoughts?
>
> That seems fine.

Thanks for the review.  If there are no objections, I would like to
apply that by tomorrow.  So please let me know.
--
Michael

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:21:25PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Fine with me.

Thanks, Peter.  Done.
--
Michael