Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody have an opinion about how non-invasive to be in the
> back-branches? The minimal version is something like this diff:
Minimal is good -- less chance of breaking anything.
> - Should we commit the test showing that the naive implementation of
> index-only-bitmap-heapscan is broken, in case somebody wants to re-introduce
> it?
Seems like a good idea. Agreed on HEAD-only for that.
> - We have some superfluous includes in nodeBitmapHeapscan.c - but I think
> that's not actually the fault of this patch. Seems the read-stream patch
> should have removed the at least the includes of visibilitymap.h, bufmgr.h
> and spccache.h? And b09ff53667f math.h...
Meh, let's leave that for the next round of IWYU hacking.
regards, tom lane
