Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code
Date: 2019-01-21 23:27:02
Message-ID: 32127.1548113222@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> (This is pretty minor, but I struggled to ignore it)
> In RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() a comment claims /* We return our
> original working copy for caller to play with */. 3 of the 4 possible
> Bitmapsets follow that comment but for some reason, we make a copy of
> the primary key attrs before returning. This seems both unnecessary
> and also quite out of sync to what all the other Bitmapsets do. I
> don't quite see any reason for doing it so I assume there's none.

I agree, that's pretty bogus. Will push in a minute.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-01-21 23:27:24 Re: Changing SQL Inlining Behaviour (or...?)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-01-21 23:25:46 Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?