Re: [HACKERS] samekeys

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This basically says that key1, which is the old key, has to match key2
> for the length of key1. If key2 has extra keys after that, that is
> fine. We will still consider the keys equal. The old code obviously
> was broken and badly thought out.
> ...
> I am unsure if samekeys should just test the first key for equality, or
> the full length of key1 as I have done.

The comment in front of samekeys claimed:

* It isn't necessary to check that each sublist exactly contain
* the same elements because if the routine that built these
* sublists together is correct, having one element in common
* implies having all elements in common.

Was that wrong? Or, perhaps, it was once right but no longer?
It sounded like fragile coding to me, but I didn't have reason
to know it was broken...

regards, tom lane