Em qua., 14 de jun. de 2023 às 13:32, Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> escreveu:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 5:12 AM Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Em qua., 14 de jun. de 2023 às 06:51, Richard Guo < > guofengli...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 3:39 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi < > horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Gurjeet has mentioned that eb.rel cannot be modified by another > >>> process since the value or memory is in the local stack, and I believe > >>> he's correct. > >>> > >>> If the pointed Relation had been blown out, eb.rel would be left > >>> dangling, not nullified. However, I don't believe this situation > >>> happens (or it shouldn't happen) as the entire relation should already > >>> be locked. > >> > >> > >> Yeah, Gurjeet is right. I had a thinko here. eb.rel should not be NULL > >> pointer in any case. And as we've acquired the lock for it, it should > >> not have been closed. So I think we can remove the check for eb.rel in > >> the two places. > > > > Ok, > > As there is a consensus on removing the tests and the comment is still > relevant, > > here is a new version for analysis. > > LGTM. > Created an entry in commitfest to track this. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/4371/ regards, Ranier Vilela
