Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qOidI-008joq-89 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:49:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qOidG-005bdj-1W for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:49:06 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qOidE-005bda-BF for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:49:05 +0000 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.21]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qOid8-000WVP-Vm for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:49:01 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968013200941 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:48:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ilmari.org; h=cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1690393734; x=1690480134; bh=zOvQhYLuqSFP6NPYFy2KuTQzk EJHcCqwO/Ya16DHrUg=; b=tuCCC4auedL+mKuGQAAmPCuBLqGl6OljujbiG/gcD I1zybtiqAz/HG5XH82PyDjo3Hb7YSdFjeIEo7GLsqv3OsTODyoqRYtglWEFYWsFs qJecvlmKBiQmya2w2UXQkakuloGmKX0qay0l9N+VTVgHz81L30a11oD4bEeopbpT RMOWWtov621qrO4lXnwbug5Mrm/Ww3z7Iy4Y/+7s4CFh81UiZDHREz0WsaG75s61 mdVz0X482jMrLUxCBWO2ck1EDNisyIx6eQtwaJEQ98lDHqkz1pI8K1epoQFsAvwW o96qKGTLbTos50tjkx7cWhFwsJ+HksZoLUzEMR2vfUe9A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1690393734; x=1690480134; bh=zOvQhYLuqSFP6NPYFy2KuTQzkEJHcCqwO/Y a16DHrUg=; b=PCTJ0RgdKm0VKQVK2U3ez2uE2Nrdie1vUcN20I+OnHWbGP/aNm0 PlrzYyuMRWNonXEQFvwiOi3rpajYLyzoZxVeXuy/i6p1GXsgbL5cpqDKJNHNZKFw GhiCkMsWN1yGQZCXeMe64SifrorwAxuNUi2g3zUf8P8dkfeWFmHlu2JHJqiHADKp xuBYIzrslx+vLEeB+CcX5eqkWXrwOpnIrKI9eMQ2/Y9VtSxgJZiRMc8WksmpS3x9 yh+1vdDk+qDdxBBICrG6/rXdC5tfanaF5x3w6YxvewBjgAXfLDFJwLIiMSxCC4uk Ojs2wI4JabZxzSAVMcsqoJSPUSFMI15VZQA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedviedriedvgdduudehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkfgggtgesmhdtreertd erjeenucfhrhhomhepffgrghhfihhnnhcukfhlmhgrrhhiucforghnnhhsnohkvghruceo ihhlmhgrrhhisehilhhmrghrihdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepieeiveetvd euveevkeefueejieekgfdvtdetffekgeejtedvjeetheehueeliedvnecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepihhlmhgrrhhisehilhhmrg hrihdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i1ff147bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:48:53 -0400 (EDT) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:48:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87sf9apnr0.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hi hackers, 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. - ilmari --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-Fix-obsolete-reference-to-pg_relation-in-comment.patch From e395f8cb293f674f45eb3847534de07c7124e738 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Dagfinn=20Ilmari=20Manns=C3=A5ker?= Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:31:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fix obsolete reference to pg_relation in comment pg_relation was renamed to pg_class in 1991, but this comment (added in 2004) missed the memo --- src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c b/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c index 84e543e731..a56912700b 100644 --- a/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c +++ b/src/backend/storage/large_object/inv_api.c @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ bool lo_compat_privileges; /* * All accesses to pg_largeobject and its index make use of a single Relation - * reference, so that we only need to open pg_relation once per transaction. + * reference, so that we only need to open pg_class once per transaction. * To avoid problems when the first such reference occurs inside a * subtransaction, we execute a slightly klugy maneuver to assign ownership of * the Relation reference to TopTransactionResourceOwner. -- 2.39.2 --=-=-=--