On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> writes: > > Yes, I now recall that my actual concern was that sample_cnt may > calculate > > to 0 due to the latest condition above, but that also implies track_cnt > == > > 0, and then we have a for loop there which will not run at all due to > this, > > so I figured we can avoid calculating avgcount and running the loop > > altogether with that check. I'm not opposed to changing the condition if > > that makes the code easier to understand (or dropping it altogether if > > calculating 0/0 is believed to be harmless anyway). > > Avoiding intentional zero divides is good. It might happen to work > conveniently on your machine, but I wouldn't think it's portable. >
Tom, Thank you for volunteering to review this patch! Are you waiting on me to produce an updated version with more comments about NULL-handling in the distinct estimator, or do you have something cooking already? -- Regards, Alex
