Subject: Re: Fix inconsistencies for v12 (pass 2)
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <e59e4d46-7c78-afb1-6edc-df77f6d8ccc9@gmail.com>
 <20190613081007.GH1643@paquier.xyz>
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f9b20f30-b00f-b3c9-7646-1bf5e90a9e41@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:16:15 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190613081007.GH1643@paquier.xyz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

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* Outdated: This struct isn't used for its original purpose anymore, but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outdated structure be removed in v12?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