Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb
От | Amul Sul |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAJ_b94PZz7N3EkaBfhoRPPXtqDk27n12im-g4bczASkZSy=MA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb
Re: [CLOBBER_CACHE]Server crashed with segfault 11 while executing clusterdb |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 6:59 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:27:25 +0530, Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote in > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > + smgrwrite(RelationGetSmgr(index), INIT_FORKNUM, BLOOM_METAPAGE_BLKNO, > > > (char *) metapage, true); > > > - log_newpage(&index->rd_smgr->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM, > > > + log_newpage(&(RelationGetSmgr(index))->smgr_rnode.node, INIT_FORKNUM, > > > > > > At the log_newpage, index is guaranteed to have rd_smgr. So I prefer > > > to leave the line alone.. I don't mind other sccessive calls if any > > > since what I don't like is the notation there. > > > > > > > Perhaps, isn't that bad. It is good to follow the practice of using > > RelationGetSmgr() for rd_smgr access, IMHO. > > I don't mind RelationGetSmgr(index)->smgr_rnode alone or > &variable->member alone and there's not the previous call to > RelationGetSmgr just above. How about using a temporary variable? > > SMgrRelation srel = RelationGetSmgr(index); > smgrwrite(srel, ...); > log_newpage(srel->..); > Understood. Used a temporary variable for the place where RelationGetSmgr() calls are placed too close or in a loop. Please have a look at the attached version, thanks for the review. Regards, Amul
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: