On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:19 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think directly using smgrcreate() is a better idea instead of first
> registering and then unregistering it. I have made that change in
> the attached patch. After this change now we can merge creating the
> MAIN_FORKNUM also in the loop below where we are creating other
> fork[1] with one extra condition but I think current code is in more
> sync with the other code where we are doing the similar things so I
> have not merged it in the loop. Please let me know if you think
> otherwise.
Generally I think our practice is that we do the main fork
unconditionally (because it should always be there) and the others
only if they exist. I suggest that you make this consistent with that,
but you could do it like if (forkNum != MAIN_FORKNUM &&
!smgrexists(...)) continue if that seems nicer.
Do you think that this version handles pending syncs correctly? I
think perhaps that is overlooked.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com