On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 1:43 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> This fixes the observed problem directly. It also makes the code
> robust against other similar problems that might arise in the future.
> The risk that comes from trusting that scanned_pages is a truly random
> sample (given these conditions) is generally very large, while the
> risk that comes from disbelieving it (given these same conditions) is
> vanishingly small.
Pushed.
--
Peter Geoghegan