Hi,
On 2022-11-21 12:34:12 +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 12:12, Matthias van de Meent
> <boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that the comment on/beneath rs_numblocks in HeapScanDescData
> > is duplicated above rs_strategy. I don't know if there should have
> > been a different comment above rs_strategy, but the current one is
> > definitely out of place, so I propose to remove it as per attached.
> >
> > The comment was duplicated in c2fe139c20 with the update to the table
> > scan APIs, which was first seen in PostgreSQL 11.
>
> I made a mistake in determining this version number; it was PostgreSQL
> 12 where this commit was first included. Attached is the same patch
> with the description updated accordingly.
I guess that happened because of the odd placement of the comment from
before the change:
bool rs_temp_snap; /* unregister snapshot at scan end? */
-
- /* state set up at initscan time */
- BlockNumber rs_nblocks; /* total number of blocks in rel */
- BlockNumber rs_startblock; /* block # to start at */
- BlockNumber rs_numblocks; /* max number of blocks to scan */
- /* rs_numblocks is usually InvalidBlockNumber, meaning "scan whole rel" */
- BufferAccessStrategy rs_strategy; /* access strategy for reads */
bool rs_syncscan; /* report location to syncscan logic? */
We rarely put comments document a struct member after it.
I'm inclined to additionally move the "legitimate" copy of the comment
to before rs_numblocks, rather than after it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
