On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> > Do you want to try coding it that way and see what it
> > comes out like?
>
> Sure.
Attached patch shows how this could work. I prefer my original
approach, but I can see the argument for doing it this way.
If we keep my original approach, we should still add a new
"ItemPointerIsValid(&itup->t_tid)" assertion that covers the plain
tupe case in a way that mirrors the current "_bt_posting_valid(itup)"
assert.
--
Peter Geoghegan
