Hi,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le mer. 4 sept. 2024 à 16:18, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > What about adding a comment instead of this extra check?
> >
> >
> Done too in v3.
Thanks!
1 ===
+ /*
+ * Don't check counts.parallelnumscans because counts.numscans includes
+ * counts.parallelnumscans
+ */
"." is missing at the end of the comment.
2 ===
- if (t > tabentry->lastscan)
+ if (t > tabentry->lastscan && lstats->counts.numscans)
The extra check on lstats->counts.numscans is not needed as it's already done
a few lines before.
3 ===
+ if (t > tabentry->parallellastscan && lstats->counts.parallelnumscans)
This one makes sense.
And now I'm wondering if the extra comment added in v3 is really worth it (and
does not sound confusing)? I mean, the parallel check is done once we passe
the initial test on counts.numscans. I think the code is clear enough without
this extra comment, thoughts?
4 ===
What about adding a few tests? or do you want to wait a bit more to see if "
there's an agreement on this patch" (as you stated at the start of this thread).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
