On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2021-Jul-09, Amul Sul wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:06 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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
v5_Add-RelationGetSmgr-inline-function.patch
Description: Binary data
