On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 2:14 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> On 20.08.24 19:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In short, more or less as attached. (I didn't bother with a
> > regression test, since none of the adjacent error checks are
> > covered either.)
>
> This patch looks right.
This patch also looks good to me. To nitpick:
- * We know that composite, enum and array types are never binary-
- * compatible with each other. They all have OIDs embedded in them.
+ * We know that composite, array, range and enum types are never
+ * binary-compatible with each other. They all have OIDs embedded in
+ * them.
I wonder if it would be better for readability to list these types in
the order we check them in the code, as we did previously, i.e.:
* We know that composite, range, enum and array types are never
* ...
Thanks
Richard