Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f8DVqeyEUuZi=wqOHbQC+DcPQSY3wbpNTZu8f-ACSv-WA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 12:27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.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.

Thanks.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL/XML Standards
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects