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