On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:59 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Guo <[email protected]> writes: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:06 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm less convinced about changing this. I'd rather keep it consistent > >> with mark_dummy_rel. > > > Hm, I wonder if we should revise the comment there that states "but not > > when called from elsewhere", as it does not seem to be true. > > I'd be okay with wording like "This is redundant in current usage > because set_rel_pathlist will do it later, but it's cheap so we keep > it for consistency with mark_dummy_rel". What do you think? That works for me. Thanks for the wording. Thanks Richard
