Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1di2td-0000oQ-ES for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:18:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1di2tc-0008B5-Q8 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:18:24 +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_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1di2s5-0005Ku-FY for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:16:49 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1di2s2-0003LQ-9G for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:16:48 +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 v7GIGh1d000303; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:16:43 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Garbled comment in postgresGetForeignJoinPaths In-reply-to: References: <27897.1502901074@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:20:36 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <301.1502907403.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:16:43 -0400 Message-ID: <302.1502907403@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> --> * reconstruct the row for EvalPlanQual(). Find an alternative local= path >> Should the marked line simply be deleted? If not, what correction is >> appropriate? > Hmm, wow. My first thought was that it should just say > "reconstructing" rather than "reconstruct", but on further reading I > think you might have the right idea. The current text of the comment dates to commit 177c56d60, and looking at that commit makes it pretty clear that the line I'm complaining of belonged to the previous text; it evidently just missed getting deleted. regards, tom lane --=20 Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers