Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> At Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:20:48 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAD21AoBY9UvS9QLrmaENGBGfQKOfGkGaLm=uYH24gmf-6CAoiw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On 4/27/17 06:47, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> >> One thing I am missing in your patch however is cleanup of entries for
>> >> relations that finished sync. I wonder if it would be enough to just
>> >> destroy the hash when we get to empty list.
>> >
>> > I had omitted that because the amount of memory "leaked" is not much,
>> > but I guess it wouldn't hurt to clean it up.
>> >
>> > How about the attached?
>> >
>
> This seems rasonable enough.
>
>> Thank you for updating patch!
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Clean up the hash table when we're done with all tables (just to
>> + * release the bit of memory).
>> + */
>> + else if (!table_states && last_start_times)
>> + {
>>
>> Isn't it better to use != NIL instead as follows?
>>
>> else if (table_state != NIL && last_start_times)
>
> Definitely!, but maybe should be reverse condition.

Yeah, that's right.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center