Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 11/01/15 08:56, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> 2015-01-11 10:40 GMT+09:00 Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>:
>>>> Yeah there are actually several places in the code where "relid" means
>>>> index in range table and not oid of relation, it still manages to
>>>> confuse me. Nothing this patch can do about that.
>>> Well, since it's confused 3 of us now... should we change it (as a
>>> separate patch)? I'm willing to do that work but don't want to waste
>>> time if it'll just be rejected.
>> It seems to me a waste of time for committers.
> I tend to agree, especially as there is multiple places in code this
> would affect - RelOptInfo and RestrictInfo have same issue, etc.
Generally speaking, if you're not sure whether a "relid" variable in the
planner is meant to be a table OID or a rangetable index, you can tell by
noting whether it's declared as type Oid or type int. So I'm also -1 on
any wholesale renaming, especially given the complete lack of an obviously
superior naming convention to change to.
If there are any places where such variables are improperly declared, then
of course we ought to fix that.
regards, tom lane
