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...@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
