Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Remove unused variable

  1. index_delete_sort: Unnecessary variable "low" is used in heapam.c

    btnakamurakoukil <btnakamurakoukil@oss.nttdata.com> — 2024-09-24T08:32:48Z

    Hi hackers,

I noticed unnecessary variable "low" in index_delete_sort() 
(/postgres/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c), patch attached. What do 
you think?

Regards,
Koki Nakamura <btnakamurakoukil@oss.nttdata.com>

  2. Re: index_delete_sort: Unnecessary variable "low" is used in heapam.c

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2024-09-24T12:31:30Z

    > On 24 Sep 2024, at 10:32, btnakamurakoukil <btnakamurakoukil@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:

> I noticed unnecessary variable "low" in index_delete_sort() (/postgres/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c), patch attached. What do you think?

That variable does indeed seem to not be used, and hasn't been used since it
was committed in d168b666823.  The question is if it's a left-over from
development which can be removed, or if it should be set and we're missing an
optimization.  Having not read the referenced paper I can't tell so adding
Peter Geoghegan who wrote this for clarification.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

  3. Re: index_delete_sort: Unnecessary variable "low" is used in heapam.c

    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2024-11-05T16:40:17Z

    
On 2024/09/24 21:31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2024, at 10:32, btnakamurakoukil <btnakamurakoukil@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> 
>> I noticed unnecessary variable "low" in index_delete_sort() (/postgres/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c), patch attached. What do you think?
> 
> That variable does indeed seem to not be used, and hasn't been used since it
> was committed in d168b666823.  The question is if it's a left-over from
> development which can be removed, or if it should be set and we're missing an
> optimization.  Having not read the referenced paper I can't tell so adding
> Peter Geoghegan who wrote this for clarification.

It's been about a month without updates. How about removing the unnecessary
variable as suggested? We can always add the "missing" logic later if needed.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

  4. Re: index_delete_sort: Unnecessary variable "low" is used in heapam.c

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2024-11-05T21:08:33Z

    > On 5 Nov 2024, at 17:40, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2024/09/24 21:31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 24 Sep 2024, at 10:32, btnakamurakoukil <btnakamurakoukil@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>> I noticed unnecessary variable "low" in index_delete_sort() (/postgres/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c), patch attached. What do you think?
>> That variable does indeed seem to not be used, and hasn't been used since it
>> was committed in d168b666823.  The question is if it's a left-over from
>> development which can be removed, or if it should be set and we're missing an
>> optimization.  Having not read the referenced paper I can't tell so adding
>> Peter Geoghegan who wrote this for clarification.
> 
> It's been about a month without updates. How about removing the unnecessary
> variable as suggested? We can always add the "missing" logic later if needed.

Thanks for reviving this, I had admittedly forgotten about this thread.  I
don't see any reason to not go ahead with the proposed diff.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

  5. Re: index_delete_sort: Unnecessary variable "low" is used in heapam.c

    Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2024-11-06T14:29:59Z

    > On 5 Nov 2024, at 22:08, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Nov 2024, at 17:40, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2024/09/24 21:31, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>>> On 24 Sep 2024, at 10:32, btnakamurakoukil <btnakamurakoukil@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>> I noticed unnecessary variable "low" in index_delete_sort() (/postgres/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c), patch attached. What do you think?
>>> That variable does indeed seem to not be used, and hasn't been used since it
>>> was committed in d168b666823.  The question is if it's a left-over from
>>> development which can be removed, or if it should be set and we're missing an
>>> optimization.  Having not read the referenced paper I can't tell so adding
>>> Peter Geoghegan who wrote this for clarification.
>> 
>> It's been about a month without updates. How about removing the unnecessary
>> variable as suggested? We can always add the "missing" logic later if needed.
> 
> Thanks for reviving this, I had admittedly forgotten about this thread.  I
> don't see any reason to not go ahead with the proposed diff.

Done now.

--
Daniel Gustafsson