Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What I'm thinking about doing to back-patch this is to replace
>> one of the pointer fields in EPQState with a pointer to a
>> subsidiary palloc'd structure, where we can put the new fields
>> along with the cannibalized old one. We've done something
>> similar before, and it seems a lot safer than having basically
>> different logic in v16 than earlier branches.
> +1.
Done that way. I chose to replace the tuple_table field, because
it was in a convenient spot and it seemed like the field least
likely to have any outside code referencing it.
regards, tom lane
