On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:59 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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? That works for me. Thanks for the wording. Thanks Richard
