On Sun 02. 07. 2023 at 10:18 Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. For comment "On success, the result list is ordered by pathkeys.", I > think it'd be more accurate if we say something like "On success, the > result list is ordered by pathkeys or a prefix list of pathkeys." > considering the possibility of incremental sort. > > 2. The comment below is not true anymore. > > /* > * Note: for any failure to match, we just return NIL immediately. > * There is no value in matching just some of the pathkeys. > */ > We should either remove it or change it to emphasize that we may return > a prefix of the pathkeys for incremental sort.
Comments are updated now.
> BTW, would you please add the patch to the CF to not lose track of it?
