Re: Incorrect result of bitmap heap scan.

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody have an opinion about how non-invasive to be in the
> back-branches? The minimal version is something like this diff:

Minimal is good -- less chance of breaking anything.

> - Should we commit the test showing that the naive implementation of
>   index-only-bitmap-heapscan is broken, in case somebody wants to re-introduce
>   it?

Seems like a good idea.  Agreed on HEAD-only for that.

> - We have some superfluous includes in nodeBitmapHeapscan.c - but I think
>   that's not actually the fault of this patch. Seems the read-stream patch
>   should have removed the at least the includes of visibilitymap.h, bufmgr.h
>   and spccache.h?  And b09ff53667f math.h...

Meh, let's leave that for the next round of IWYU hacking.

            regards, tom lane