Re: Fix a wrong comment in setrefs.c

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 8:19 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:

> On 03/11/2023 08:10, Richard Guo wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:51 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com
> > <mailto:guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:45 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> > <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm inclined to write the comment more like "Usually the equal()
> > check is redundant, but in setop plans it may not be, since
> > prepunion.c assigns ressortgroupref equal to the column resno
> > without regard to whether that matches the topmost level's
> > sortgrouprefs and without regard to whether any implicit
> coercions
> > are added in the setop tree. We might have to clean that up
> > someday;
> > but for now, just ignore any false matches."
> >
> > +1. It explains the situation much more clearly and accurately.
> >
> > To make it easier to review, I've updated the patch to be so.
>
> Committed, thanks!

Thanks for pushing!

Thanks
Richard