On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:47 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I don't think it's outright wrong, but it is very confusing what it relates > to. For some reason I tried to "attach" the parenthetical to the "otherwise", > which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How about:
I suppose that it doesn't matter whether it's outright wrong, or just unclear. Either way it should be improved. > * If rel is not NULL the horizon may be considerably more recent (i.e. > * allowing more tuples to be removed) than otherwise. In the NULL case a > * horizon that is correct (but not optimal) for all relations will be > * returned. Thus, if possible, a relation should be provided. That seems much better to me. The most important part is the last sentence. The key idea is that you as a caller should provide a rel if at all possible (and if not you should feel a pang of guilt). That emphasis makes the potential consequences much more obvious. -- Peter Geoghegan