Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
Date: 2021-02-09 08:33:22
Message-ID: CAHut+PtvSTL13J=aPaZLLm3mjhr0o5zD6jKznS9HT6GEhDW_Hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

When looking at the DropSubscription code I noticed that there is a
small difference between the HEAD code and the V29 code when slot_name
= NONE.

HEAD does
------
if (!slotname)
{
table_close(rel, NoLock);
return;
}
------

V29 does
------
if (!slotname)
{
/* be tidy */
list_free(rstates);
return;
}
------

Isn't the V29 code missing doing a table_close(rel, NoLock) there?

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2021-02-09 08:38:06 Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans
Previous Message Josef Šimánek 2021-02-09 08:32:48 Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting