Re: RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() small deviation between comment and code

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> (This is pretty minor, but I struggled to ignore it)
> In RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() a comment claims /* We return our
> original working copy for caller to play with */. 3 of the 4 possible
> Bitmapsets follow that comment but for some reason, we make a copy of
> the primary key attrs before returning.  This seems both unnecessary
> and also quite out of sync to what all the other Bitmapsets do.   I
> don't quite see any reason for doing it so I assume there's none.

I agree, that's pretty bogus.  Will push in a minute.

            regards, tom lane