Re: heapgettup refactoring

On 10.01.23 21:31, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 8:52 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, let's look through these patches starting from the top then.
>>
>> v4-0001-Add-no-movement-scan-helper.patch
>>
>> This makes sense overall; there is clearly some duplicate code that can
>> be unified.
>>
>> It appears that during your rebasing you have effectively reverted your
>> earlier changes that have been committed as
>> 8e1db29cdbbd218ab6ba53eea56624553c3bef8c. You should undo that.
>
> Thanks. I think I have addressed this.
> I've attached a rebased v5.

In your v2 patch, you remove these assertions:

- /* check that rs_cindex is in sync */
- Assert(scan->rs_cindex < scan->rs_ntuples);
- Assert(lineoff == scan->rs_vistuples[scan->rs_cindex]);

Is that intentional?

I don't see any explanation, or some other equivalent code appearing
elsewhere to replace this.