Re: wrong comments in ClassifyUtilityCommandAsReadOnly

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 16:37, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, rather than simply remove
>> define.c's entire header comment, maybe we should write something
>> relevant about what it does? Good catches otherwise.

> I didn't have any inspiration on what to write other than what's
> already written on line 4.

Hmm ... fair enough, I don't have a tighter spec either. It looks
like the current situation is my fault --- 71dc300a3 should have
thought harder about how to update this header comment.

> Another reason I deleted that is that
> since the file contains helper functions, I didn't want to write a new
> comment based on what functions are there now as it may put someone
> else off from adding new ones if the new one doesn't fit the comment.

Perhaps we could define it as "Support routines for dealing with
DefElem nodes". You're right that maybe someone would want to
throw in something else, but would it really belong? The file's
charter seems far narrower now than it once was.

regards, tom lane