On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 00:31, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > jian he <jian.universal...@gmail.com> writes: > > Now I see your point. If the transformed plan is right, the whole > > added code should be fine. > > but keeping the textrange_supp related test should be a good idea. > > since we don't have SUBTYPE_OPCLASS related sql tests. > > Yeah, it's a little harder to make a table-less test for that case. > I thought about using current_user or the like as a stable comparison > value, but that introduces some doubt about what the collation would > be. That test seems cheap enough as-is, since it's handling only a > tiny amount of data. > > Committed.
I have updated the commitfest entry to Committed as the patch is committed. Regards, Vignesh
