| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: obsolete reference to a SubPlan field |
| Date: | 2022-03-14 17:45:00 |
| Message-ID: | 199433.1647279900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 3:08 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Attached patch removes those.
> Looks right to me. Tom, any comments?
I'm pretty sure I left those comments alone on purpose back in 2007,
and I don't find simply removing them to be an improvement.
In principle, readers might expect that tree walkers/mutators
would descend to a SubPlan's query, as they do for a SubLink's
query. Calling out the fact that that doesn't happen seems
useful to me. If you don't like this particular wording of those
comments, we can discuss better wordings ... but I doubt that
nothing-at-all is better.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-14 18:27:32 | Re: obsolete reference to a SubPlan field |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-03-14 17:34:17 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |