On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:42 AM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > Do you want to try coding it that way and see what it > > comes out like? > > Sure.
Attached patch shows how this could work. I prefer my original approach, but I can see the argument for doing it this way. If we keep my original approach, we should still add a new "ItemPointerIsValid(&itup->t_tid)" assertion that covers the plain tupe case in a way that mirrors the current "_bt_posting_valid(itup)" assert. -- Peter Geoghegan
0001-Restructure-_bt_update_posting.patch
Description: Binary data
