Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 06:58:33AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > I don't particularly want to remove the field, but we ought to > > > change or remove the comment. > > > > I'm not concerned about the existence of the field as well. The comment just > > made me worried that I might be missing some fundamental concept. Thanks for > > your opinion. > > I have developed the attached patch to address this.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if I'm expected to send the patch and then I forgot. If the comment tells that t_hoff can be computed (i.e. it's no necessary to include it in the structure), I think the comment should tell why it's yet included. Maybe something about "historical reasons"? Perhaps we can say that the storage used to be free due to padding, and that it's no longer so, but it's still "cheap", so it's not worth to teach the REDO functions to compute the value. -- Antonin Houska Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
