Richard Guo <guofengli...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:06 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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?
regards, tom lane
