Re: Simplify create_merge_append_path a bit for clarity

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 1:28 PM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there a reason you don't want to remove the required_outer
> parameter altogether? I guess because it is such a common pattern to
> pass it?

I think it's best to keep this parameter unchanged to maintain
consistency with other functions that create path nodes in pathnode.c.

> Do you think it is worth keeping this assertion?:
>
> -
> - /* All child paths must have same parameterization */
> - Assert(bms_equal(PATH_REQ_OUTER(subpath), required_outer));
>
> I understand any failure would trigger one of the prior asserts
> instead, but it does communicate an extra requirement, and there is no
> cost.

I don't think it's a good idea to keep this Assert: with this change
it becomes redundant.

> But I'd be fine with committing this patch as-is.

I've pushed this patch. Thanks for review.

Thanks
Richard