From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fix inconsistencies for v12 (pass 2)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:16:15 +0300
Message-ID: <f9b20f30-b00f-b3c9-7646-1bf5e90a9e41@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190613081007.GH1643@paquier.xyz>
References: <e59e4d46-7c78-afb1-6edc-df77f6d8ccc9@gmail.com>
<20190613081007.GH1643@paquier.xyz>
Hello,
13.06.2019 11:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The last trace of tss_htup has been removed as of 2e3da03, and I see
> no mention of it in the related thread. Andres, is that intentional
> for table AMs to keep a trace of a currently-fetched tuple for a TID
> scan or something that can be removed? The field is still
> documented, so the patch is incomplete if we finish by removing the
> field. And my take is that we should keep it.
Andres, I've found another unused structure field "was_xmin" in the
was_running structure, having the following comment:
* Outdated: This struct isn't used for its original purpose anymore, but
* can't be removed / changed in a minor version, because it's stored
* on-disk.
This comment lives here since 955a684e, May 13 2017. Shouldn't the
outdated structure be removed in v12?
Best regards,
Alexander
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: exclusion@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, michael@paquier.xyz
Subject: Re: Fix inconsistencies for v12 (pass 2)
In-Reply-To: <f9b20f30-b00f-b3c9-7646-1bf5e90a9e41@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox