On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Shulgin, Oleksandr < oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de> wrote:
> 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? > I've just seen that this patch doesn't have a reviewer assigned anymore... I would welcome any review. If we don't commit even the first part (bugfix) now, is it going to be 9.7-only material?.. -- Alex
