Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:50:31 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manns=E5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment
Message-ID: <20230726205031.GD3310393@nathanxps13>
References: <87sf9apnr0.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87sf9apnr0.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230726205031.GD3310393%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

Okay, now looking at the patch...

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>   * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single Relation
> - * reference, so that we only need to open pg_relation once per transaction.
> + * reference, so that we only need to open pg_class once per transaction.
>   * To avoid problems when the first such reference occurs inside a
>   * subtransaction, we execute a slightly klugy maneuver to assign ownership of
>   * the Relation reference to TopTransactionResourceOwner.

Hm.  Are you sure this is actually referring to pg_class?  It seems
unlikely given pg_relation was renamed 14 years before this comment was
added, and the code appears to be ensuring that pg_largeobject and its
index are opened at most once per transaction.  I couldn't find the
original thread for this comment, unfortunately, but ISTM we might want to
replace "pg_relation" with "them" instead.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com