Hi, Nirbhay!

On May 26, Nirbhay Choubey wrote:

> > > +/*
> > > +  Create a temporary table, open it and return the TABLE handle.
> > > +
> > > +  @param hton [IN]                    Handlerton
> > > +  @param frm  [IN]                    Binary frm image
> > > +  @param path [IN]                    File path (without extension)
> > > +  @param db   [IN]                    Schema name
> > > +  @param table_name [IN]              Table name
> > > +  @param open_in_engine [IN]          Whether open table in SE
> > > +  @param created [OUT]                Whether table was created?
> >
> > can it ever happen for *create==true but a return value is NULL?
> > or the other way around? how?
>
> Yes, but not the other way around. For instance, if the table was
> created successfully, but the subsequent malloc failed while an
> attempt was made to allocate TABLE object later in
> open_temporary_table().

But do you need to handle this practically impossible case specially?
I'd say - if that happens, just drop the table (or even don't drop it,
it'll be removed on disconnect anyway) and pretend the whole never
happened (return NULL). I mean, you don't need a separate *created
pointer.

> > > +  if (wait_for_prior_commit())
> >
> > you're doing it in almost every method. And when one method calls another,
> > you're doing it twice. Or thrice. Isn't is too much? (I don't know)
>
> I added these additional waits to fix some failing replication tests. But,
> whit new TMP_TABLE_SHARE approach, this could have changed.
> I have now reverted them to the original state and will run rpl test to
> assure if we do not need additional waits.

And?

> > > +  free_io_cache(table);
> >
> > don't forget to remove free_io_cache() calls when rebasing your
> > work on top of the latest 10.2
> > (they were removed from close_temporary() in 260dd476b05 commit)
>
> Okay

Unless you've rebased already, it makes sense to do it now - as you're
apparently almost ready to push

Regards,
Sergei
Chief Architect MariaDB
and security@mariadb.org