| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Garbled comment in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths |
| Date: | 2017-08-16 19:02:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoas+qcw1uo06GNkpXoNKknpfdTShc2x09RrXa8x0MLM0A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> --> * reconstruct the row for EvalPlanQual(). Find an alternative local path
>>> Should the marked line simply be deleted? If not, what correction is
>>> appropriate?
>
>> Hmm, wow. My first thought was that it should just say
>> "reconstructing" rather than "reconstruct", but on further reading I
>> think you might have the right idea.
>
> The current text of the comment dates to commit 177c56d60, and looking at
> that commit makes it pretty clear that the line I'm complaining of
> belonged to the previous text; it evidently just missed getting deleted.
Got it. Nice forensics, and sorry about the good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-16 19:02:40 | Re: Garbled comment in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2017-08-16 18:56:58 | Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage() |