Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:11:53 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari =?iso-8859-1?Q?Manns=E5ker?= <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment
Message-ID: <20230726191153.GA3315838@nathanxps13>
References: <87sf9apnr0.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org>
 <20230726185306.GB3310393@nathanxps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230726185306.GB3310393@nathanxps13>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230726191153.GA3315838%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 11:53:06AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Triggered by a discussion on IRC, I noticed that there's a stray
>> reference to pg_relation in a comment that was added long after it was
>> renamed to pg_class.  Here's a patch to bring that up to speed.
> 
>> pg_relation was renamed to pg_class in 1991, but this comment (added
>> in 2004) missed the memo
> 
> Huh, interesting!  I dug around the Berkeley archives [0] and found
> comments indicating that pg_relation was renamed to pg_class in Februrary
> 1990.  However, it looks like the file was named pg_relation.h until
> Postgres95 v0.01, which has the following comment in pg_class.h:
> 
> 	 *    ``pg_relation'' is being replaced by ``pg_class''.  currently
> 	 *    we are only changing the name in the catalogs but someday the
> 	 *    code will be changed too. -cim 2/26/90
> 	 *    [it finally happens.  -ay 11/5/94]

This comment actually lived in Postgres until 9cf80f2 (June 2000), too.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com