On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>

> Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
> > Alright.  I'm attaching the latest version of this patch split in two
> > parts: the first one is NULLs-related bugfix and the second is the
> > "improvement" part, which applies on top of the first one.
> I went over patch 0001 and it seems pretty reasonable.  It's missing
> some comment updates -- at least the large comments that talk about Duj1
> should be modified to indicate why the code is now subtracting the null
> count.

Good point.

> Also, I can't quite figure out why the "else" now in line 2131
> is now "else if track_cnt != 0".  What happens if track_cnt is zero?
> The comment above the "if" block doesn't provide any guidance.

It is there only to avoid potentially dividing zero by zero when
calculating avgcount (which will not be used after that anyway).  I agree
it deserves a comment.

Thank you!

Reply via email to