Alvaro Herrera writes:
> [ shrug ] It seemed to require no further work, so I just pushed Tom's
> proposed change.
> I added an empty line after the new combined assertion, which makes
> clearer (to me anyway) that the other assertions are unrelated.
Actually, the thing I wanted to add was some
On 2019-Sep-05, James Coleman wrote:
> Yes, planning on it, just a bit behind right now so will likely be a
> few more days at least.
[ shrug ] It seemed to require no further work, so I just pushed Tom's
proposed change.
I added an empty line after the new combined assertion, which makes
clear
Yes, planning on it, just a bit behind right now so will likely be a
few more days at least.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 4:57 PM Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant
wrote:
>
> On 2019-Aug-26, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > James Coleman writes:
>
> > I think the comment is fine as-is. Perhaps the code would be c
On 2019-Aug-26, Tom Lane wrote:
> James Coleman writes:
> I think the comment is fine as-is. Perhaps the code would be clearer
> though, if we merged those two asserts into one?
>
> /* Assert we're called before loading any tuples */
> Assert(state->status == TSS_INITIAL &&
>
James Coleman writes:
> While digging into the incremental sort patch, I noticed in
> tuplesort.c at the beginning of the function in $SUBJECT we have this
> comment and assertion:
> tuplesort_set_bound(Tuplesortstate *state, int64 bound)
> {
> /* Assert we're called before loading any tuples
While digging into the incremental sort patch, I noticed in
tuplesort.c at the beginning of the function in $SUBJECT we have this
comment and assertion:
tuplesort_set_bound(Tuplesortstate *state, int64 bound)
{
/* Assert we're called before loading any tuples */
Assert(state->status == TSS
