From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment |
Date: | 2023-07-26 20:50:31 |
Message-ID: | 20230726205031.GD3310393@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2023-07-26 20:56:45 | Re: incremental-checkopints |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2023-07-26 20:22:30 | Re: Row pattern recognition |