Re: Fix inconsistencies for v12 (pass 2)

Hello Michael,
13.06.2019 11:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 05:34:06PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> I can't see another inconsistencies for v12 for now, but there are some
>> that appeared before.
>> If this work can be performed more effectively or should be
>> postponed/canceled, please let me know.
> Note sure that it is much productive to have one patch with basically 
> one-liners in each one...  Anyway..
As the proposed fixes are independent, I decided to separate them. I
will make a single patch on next iteration.
> All your suggestions are right.  I do have one doubt for the
> suggestion in execnodes.h:
> @@ -1571,7 +1571,6 @@ typedef struct TidScanState
>     int         tss_NumTids;
>     int         tss_TidPtr;
>     ItemPointerData *tss_TidList;
> -   HeapTupleData tss_htup;
> } TidScanState;
> 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.
Yes, you're right. I've completed the patch for a possible elimination
of the field.

Best regards,
Alexander