Re: Unnecessary smgropen in {heapam_relation,index}_copy_data?

From: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary smgropen in {heapam_relation,index}_copy_data?
Date: 2024-01-25 15:22:41
Message-ID: ME3P282MB3166D290B759D59F62AD4B68B67A2@ME3P282MB3166.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 at 21:43, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I find heapam_relation_copy_data() and index_copy_data() have the following code:
>>
>> dstrel = smgropen(*newrlocator, rel->rd_backend);
>>
>> ...
>>
>> RelationCreateStorage(*newrlocator, rel->rd_rel->relpersistence, true);
>>
>> The smgropen() is also called by RelationCreateStorage(), why should we call
>> smgropen() explicitly here?
>>
>> I try to remove the smgropen(), and all tests passed.
>
> That's a very good question. Note that the second argument of
> smgropen() used to create dstrel changes after applying your patch.
> I'm not 100% sure whether this is significant or not.
>

Thanks for the review.

According the comments of RelationData->rd_backend, it is the backend id, if
the relation is temporary. The differnece is RelationCreateStorage() uses
relpersistence to determinate the backend id.

> I added your patch to the nearest open commitfest so that we will not lose it:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/47/4794/

Thank you.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2024-01-25 15:28:06 Re: A compiling warning in jsonb_populate_record_valid
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-01-25 15:19:28 Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning