James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I stared at this for awhile and eventually convinced myself that it
>> implemented the same logic, but it still seems overly complex. We
>> do not need either the firstTuple or lastTuple flags, and we could
>> convert the nTuple adjustments into a normal for-loop with (IMO)
>> much greater intelligibility. What do you think of the attached?
> Yes, that looks even better. Not sure how I missed that I'd just
> reimplemented a normal for-loop with firstTuple/lastTuple conditions,
> but I guess that's the benefit of coming at it with fresh eyes and
> without the history of how it got the way it was.
> +1 on committing v2.
Sounds good, pushed.
regards, tom lane