On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 at 21:05, Richard Guo <[email protected]> wrote:
> FWIW, I complained about the stray check in has_useful_pathkeys() in
> [1] last week, but you were quicker than me in making the code change
> to remove it.

I missed that. I'm confident that line does nothing but waste cycles.
A quick look at how those pathkeys are set in standard_qp_callback()
should remove any uncertainty.

David

> [1] 
> https://postgr.es/m/CAMbWs4_zW5QU=zk32s17p8qwy+ga-3zutons+y+wopguiop...@mail.gmail.com


Reply via email to