[HACKERS] RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE, enrtuples and comments

While completing my annual src/backend/nodes/*funcs.c audit, I noticed defects
in commit 18ce3a4 changes to RangeTblEntry:

1. Field relid is under a comment saying it is valid for RTE_RELATION only.  Fields coltypes, coltypmods and
colcollationsare under a comment saying  they are valid for RTE_VALUES and RTE_CTE only.  But _outRangeTblEntry()
treatsall of the above as valid for RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE.  Which is right?
 

2. New fields enrname and enrtuples are set only for RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE, yet  they're under the comment for RTE_VALUES
andRTE_CTE.  This pair needs its  own comment.
 

3. Each of _{copy,equal,out,read}RangeTblEntry() silently ignores enrtuples.  _equalRangeTblEntry() ignores enrname,
too. In each case, the function  should either use the field or have a comment to note that skipping the  field is
intentional. Which should it be?
 

This fourth point is not necessarily a defect: I wonder if RangeTblEntry is
the right place for enrtuples.  It's a concept regularly seen in planner data
structures but not otherwise seen at parse tree level.

nm