Hi hackers, ``` diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execTuples.c b/src/backend/executor/execTuples.c index 8e02d68824f..b77e9513e7e 100644 --- a/src/backend/executor/execTuples.c +++ b/src/backend/executor/execTuples.c @@ -1532,9 +1532,6 @@ ExecSetSlotDescriptor(TupleTableSlot *slot, /* slot to change */ * and let the upper-level table slot assume ownership of the copy! * * Return value is just the passed-in slot pointer. - * - * If the target slot is not guaranteed to be TTSOpsHeapTuple type slot, use - * the, more expensive, ExecForceStoreHeapTuple(). * -------------------------------- */ TupleTableSlot * @@ -1572,9 +1569,6 @@ ExecStoreHeapTuple(HeapTuple tuple, * slot is cleared, so that the tuple won't go away on us. * * Return value is just the passed-in slot pointer. - * - * If the target slot is not guaranteed to be TTSOpsBufferHeapTuple type slot, - * use the, more expensive, ExecForceStoreHeapTuple(). * -------------------------------- */ TupleTableSlot * @@ -1627,9 +1621,6 @@ ExecStorePinnedBufferHeapTuple(HeapTuple tuple, /* * Store a minimal tuple into TTSOpsMinimalTuple type slot. - * - * If the target slot is not guaranteed to be TTSOpsMinimalTuple type slot, - * use the, more expensive, ExecForceStoreMinimalTuple(). */ TupleTableSlot * ExecStoreMinimalTuple(MinimalTuple mtup, ```
All of these are reporting an error rather than using ExecForceStore*(), so I just remove these comments. Thoughts? -- Regards, ChangAo Chen
v1-0001-Fix-comments-in-execTuples.c.patch
Description: Binary data
