Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eFX9t-0000M6-NL for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 03:17:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eFX9t-0003To-4e for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 03:17:37 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eFX9s-0003Te-TL for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 03:17:37 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eFX9q-0007YV-En for pgsql-committers@postgresql.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 03:17:35 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id vAH3HVAb024111; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:17:31 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove BufFile's isTemp flag. In-reply-to: <20171117031149.hslkxis732hkjuog@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <23339.1510887494@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20171117031149.hslkxis732hkjuog@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:11:49 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <24109.1510888651.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:17:31 -0500 Message-ID: <24110.1510888651@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-11-16 21:58:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> [ squint... ] That used to have an actual purpose connected to >> transaction-abort cleanup, IIRC. It disturbs me that this seems >> to have been lost. > I've not found any such use, searching through buffile.c's history. I > don't quite see how that flag could've been related to abort cleanup > stuff? There's been another unused caller of makeBufFile, namely > BufFileCreate, that has been #ifdef'ed out for ages (perhaps we > should've removed that with this commit or a long time ago). Other than > that there seems to not have been any other caller setting that flag > differently since you created the file in db3c4c3a2d980dcd. I'm tired for today, but will take a closer look tomorrow. I do not think the mechanism was created without a purpose ... regards, tom lane