From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Remove some redundant set_cheapest() calls
In-reply-to: <CAMbWs4_zhKyQaxOFe8mViY_fsi9rO=wsALijRg+PvXvsr9=U+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMbWs4-KFEU_fDuJPNCOkUu3rwvZvKBEytkd9VrM4kH4-2h1CQ@mail.gmail.com> <3166037.1711483618@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAMbWs4_zhKyQaxOFe8mViY_fsi9rO=wsALijRg+PvXvsr9=U+w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:06:50 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <3305401.1711551546.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:59:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3305402.1711551546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3305402.1711551546%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:06 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm less convinced about changing this.  I'd rather keep it consistent
>> with mark_dummy_rel.

> Hm, I wonder if we should revise the comment there that states "but not
> when called from elsewhere", as it does not seem to be true.

I'd be okay with wording like "This is redundant in current usage
because set_rel_pathlist will do it later, but it's cheap so we keep
it for consistency with mark_dummy_rel".  What do you think?

			regards, tom lane