Hi hackers, Triggered by a discussion on IRC, I noticed that there's a stray reference to pg_relation in a comment that was added long after it was renamed to pg_class. Here's a patch to bring that up to speed.
- ilmari
>From e395f8cb293f674f45eb3847534de07c7124e738 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilm...@ilmari.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:31:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fix obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment pg_relation was renamed to pg_class in 1991, but this comment (added in 2004) missed the memo --- src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c b/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c index 84e543e731..a56912700b 100644 --- a/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c +++ b/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ bool lo_compat_privileges; /* * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single Relation - * reference, so that we only need to open pg_relation once per transaction. + * reference, so that we only need to open pg_class once per transaction. * To avoid problems when the first such reference occurs inside a * subtransaction, we execute a slightly klugy maneuver to assign ownership of * the Relation reference to TopTransactionResourceOwner. -- 2.39.2