On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 00:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> writes:
> > Now I see your point. If the transformed plan is right, the whole
> > added code should be fine.
> > but keeping the textrange_supp related test should be a good idea.
> > since we don't have SUBTYPE_OPCLASS related sql tests.
>
> Yeah, it's a little harder to make a table-less test for that case.
> I thought about using current_user or the like as a stable comparison
> value, but that introduces some doubt about what the collation would
> be. That test seems cheap enough as-is, since it's handling only a
> tiny amount of data.
>
> Committed.
I have updated the commitfest entry to Committed as the patch is committed.
Regards,
Vignesh