From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Neha Sharma <neha(dot)sharma(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb |
Date: | 2021-04-20 05:48:26 |
Message-ID: | CAAJ_b94PZz7N3EkaBfhoRPPXtqDk27n12im-g4bczASkZSy=MA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 6:59 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:27:25 +0530, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > + smgrwrite(RelationGetSmgr(index), INIT_FORKNUM, BLOOM_METAPAGE_BLKNO,
> > > (char *) metapage, true);
> > > - log_newpage(&index->rd_smgr->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM,
> > > + log_newpage(&(RelationGetSmgr(index))->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM,
> > >
> > > At the log_newpage, index is guaranteed to have rd_smgr. So I prefer
> > > to leave the line alone.. I don't mind other sccessive calls if any
> > > since what I don't like is the notation there.
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps, isn't that bad. It is good to follow the practice of using
> > RelationGetSmgr() for rd_smgr access, IMHO.
>
> I don't mind RelationGetSmgr(index)->smgr_rnode alone or
> &variable->member alone and there's not the previous call to
> RelationGetSmgr just above. How about using a temporary variable?
>
> SMgrRelation srel = RelationGetSmgr(index);
> smgrwrite(srel, ...);
> log_newpage(srel->..);
>
Understood. Used a temporary variable for the place where
RelationGetSmgr() calls are placed too close or in a loop.
Please have a look at the attached version, thanks for the review.
Regards,
Amul
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v3_Add-RelationGetSmgr-inline-function.patch | application/x-patch | 34.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-04-20 05:48:35 | Re: Table refer leak in logical replication |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2021-04-20 05:45:30 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |