| From: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2021-07-12 05:00:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAAJ_b95YM73_7BwrcOd4hvXEzQ9biPm0ZUA3_fw8a3hn7kTxdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2021-Jul-09, Amul Sul wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > > > The point of the static-inline function idea was to be cheap enough
> > > > that it isn't worth worrying about this sort of risky optimization.
> > > > Given that an smgr function is sure to involve some kernel calls,
> > > > I doubt it's worth sweating over an extra test-and-branch beforehand.
> > > > So where I was hoping to get to is that smgr objects are *only*
> > > > referenced by RelationGetSmgr() calls and nobody ever keeps any
> > > > other pointers to them across any non-smgr operations.
>
> > Herewith attached version did the same, thanks.
>
> I think it would be valuable to have a comment in that function to point
> out what is the function there for.
Thanks for the suggestion, added the same in the attached version.
Regards,
Amul
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5_Add-RelationGetSmgr-inline-function.patch | application/octet-stream | 34.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-12 05:09:41 | Re: More time spending with "delete pending" |
| Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-07-12 04:48:06 | Re: Remove useless int64 range checks on BIGINT sequence MINVALUE/MAXVALUE values |