On 02/03/2015 06:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or perhaps we should just remove both the field and the ifdef'd
> assignments. That's a bit more drastic but I can't really see
> this code ever coming back to life ... especially since the notion
> of a field that's not stored on disk but is valid in in-memory
> copies seems impossibly error-prone. Most functions can have no
> idea whether their input is residing in a disk buffer or not.
> And adding the bookkeeping to determine that would surely cost
> more than just recomputing the slope when needed.
+1 for removing it altogether.
- Heikki