Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hR1TD-0004dk-I2 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:29:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hR1TB-0000zu-BG for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:29:49 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hR1Qy-0002Zg-VM for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:27:33 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hR1Qx-00030c-G4 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 May 2019 21:27:32 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x4FLRSbC017151; Wed, 15 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: ClonedConstraint typedef is dead code? In-reply-to: <20190515191940.GA6777@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20190515191940.GA6777@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Wed, 15 May 2019 15:19:40 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <17149.1557955648.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400 Message-ID: <17150.1557955648@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alvaro Herrera writes: > On 2019-May-15, Tom Lane wrote: >> catalog/pg_constraint.h defines a typedef ClonedConstraint, >> which AFAICS is no longer referenced anywhere. Is there a >> reason not to remove it? > Oh, I didn't realize it had become completely unused! It was used for > FK creation in partitioned tables, but we rewrote that code completely > and I don't foresee needing that struct for anything in the future, so > it seems safe to remove. Thanks, done. regards, tom lane