Re: Removing unneeded downlink field from nbtree stack struct

2019-08-14 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:43 AM Anastasia Lubennikova wrote: > The refactoring is clear, so I set Ready for committer status. > I have just a couple of notes about comments: > > 1) I think that it's worth to add explanation of the case when we use > right sibling to this comment: > +

Re: Removing unneeded downlink field from nbtree stack struct

2019-08-12 Thread Anastasia Lubennikova
16.07.2019 2:16, Peter Geoghegan wrote: Attached patch slightly simplifies _bt_getstackbuf() by making it accept a child BlockNumber argument, rather than requiring that callers store the child block number in the parent stack item's bts_btentry field. We can remove the bts_btentry field from the

Removing unneeded downlink field from nbtree stack struct

2019-07-15 Thread Peter Geoghegan
Attached patch slightly simplifies _bt_getstackbuf() by making it accept a child BlockNumber argument, rather than requiring that callers store the child block number in the parent stack item's bts_btentry field. We can remove the bts_btentry field from the BTStackData struct, because we know where