On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I am not real sure why the code is inconsistent about spelling the
> second field's name differently in some of the structs, but it seems
> like a bad idea --- as you've demonstrated, it invites confusion.
> What would probably be better is a patch to rename exprno, rfno, etc
> to all be called dno to make this connection more obvious.
Attached. Passed regressions and basic testing.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com