Re: [Patch] remove duplicated smgrclose

Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2024年8月15日周四 18:03写道：

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:35 PM Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Junwang, Kirill,
> >
> > The split work has been done. I created a new patch for removing
> redundant smgrclose() function as attached.
> > Please help review it.
>
> Patch looks good, actually you can make the refactoring code as v3-0002-xxx
> by using:
>
> git format-patch -2 -v 3
>
> Another kind reminder: Do not top-post when you reply ;)
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steven
> >
> > Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2024年8月12日周一 18:11写道：
> >>
> >> Kirill,
> >>
> >> Good catch!
> >> I will split the patch into two to cover both cases.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Steven
> >>
> >>
> >> Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2024年8月9日周五 18:19写道：
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 5:20 PM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 17:32, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Hi Steven,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:16 AM Steven Niu <niushiji(at)gmail(dot)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
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Junwang Zhao
>

OK， thanks for your kind help.

Steven