"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I am not real sure why the code is inconsistent about spelling the >> second field's name differently in some of the structs, but it seems >> like a bad idea --- as you've demonstrated, it invites confusion. >> What would probably be better is a patch to rename exprno, rfno, etc >> to all be called dno to make this connection more obvious.
> Attached. Passed regressions and basic testing. Looks good, applied. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers