Re: Minor comment update in setrefs.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Minor comment update in setrefs.c
Date: 2015-12-10 17:21:59
Message-ID: CA+TgmobWiQ6sr9jnLkHCSOwYemLsnSWQhWQvDrWxETY2qcExxA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Attached is a small patch to adjust a comment in setrefs.c; in
> set_foreignscan_references, fdw_recheck_quals also gets adjusted to
> reference foreign scan tuple, in case of a foreign join, so I added
> "etc.", to a comment there, as the comment in case of a simple foreign
> table scan.

Doesn't apply any more. I suppose we could sync up the similar
comments in set_customscan_references() too. But to be honest I'm not
sure this is adding any clarity. "etc." may not be the least
informative thing you can put in a comment, but it's pretty close.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-12-10 17:36:32 Re: Error with index on unlogged table
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-12-10 17:19:12 Re: Error with index on unlogged table