On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 9:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao writes:
> > ISTM Andres tend to use *es_epq_active* in a boolean way,
> > like `if (es_epq_active) then`, but in the code base, all its usages
> > follow pattern `if (es_epq_active == NULL) then`, so I propose to
> > change es_epq_a
Junwang Zhao writes:
> ISTM Andres tend to use *es_epq_active* in a boolean way,
> like `if (es_epq_active) then`, but in the code base, all its usages
> follow pattern `if (es_epq_active == NULL) then`, so I propose to
> change es_epq_active to es_epqstate.
While I didn't especially love "es_epq
Hi hackers,
While reviewing the ExecSeqScan optimizations patch[1], I found that
es_epq_active might not be well named, my intuition told me that this
is a boolean field because of the "active" suffix.
es_epq_active was introduced in 27cc7cd, in the original discussion[2],
Tom and Andres discusse
