Re: Another typo in comment in setrefs.c

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Etsuro Fujita (fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
> >> I'm attaching a small patch to fix another comment typo in setrefs.c:
> >> s/TIDs/OIDs/
>
> > Fixed.
>
> I do not think "typo" is the right characterization. I'm too lazy to
> check for sure, but I think what was accumulated was indeed TIDs at one
> time. The proposed patch is not correct either: what we accumulate now is
> syscache hash values. Might be best to just say "add PlanInvalItems for
> user-defined functions", which is the wording used in some other places,
> eg line 173.

Perhaps it was. I had looked at what was being called (which is
record_plan_function_dependency) and noted that it was taking OIDs and
certainly not TIDs.

I agree that rewording it to refer to PlanInvalItems is better than just
saying OIDs when we're actually looking up the OID and then adding a
PlanInvalItem which includes PROCOID and the syscache hash value.

Attached is a patch with the proposed change (against master, the back
branches require slightly different patches due to nearby wording
changes).

Thanks!

Stephen