Обсуждение: Another typo in comment in setrefs.c

Hi,

I'm attaching a small patch to fix another comment typo in setrefs.c:
s/TIDs/OIDs/

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

* Etsuro Fujita (fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> I'm attaching a small patch to fix another comment typo in setrefs.c:
> s/TIDs/OIDs/

Fixed.

Thanks!

Stephen

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
>> I'm attaching a small patch to fix another comment typo in setrefs.c:
>> s/TIDs/OIDs/

> Fixed.

I do not think "typo" is the right characterization.  I'm too lazy to
check for sure, but I think what was accumulated was indeed TIDs at one
time.  The proposed patch is not correct either: what we accumulate now is
syscache hash values.  Might be best to just say "add PlanInvalItems for
user-defined functions", which is the wording used in some other places,
eg line 173.
        regards, tom lane

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> >> I'm attaching a small patch to fix another comment typo in setrefs.c:
> >> s/TIDs/OIDs/
>
> > Fixed.
>
> I do not think "typo" is the right characterization.  I'm too lazy to
> check for sure, but I think what was accumulated was indeed TIDs at one
> time.  The proposed patch is not correct either: what we accumulate now is
> syscache hash values.  Might be best to just say "add PlanInvalItems for
> user-defined functions", which is the wording used in some other places,
> eg line 173.

Perhaps it was.  I had looked at what was being called (which is
record_plan_function_dependency) and noted that it was taking OIDs and
certainly not TIDs.

I agree that rewording it to refer to PlanInvalItems is better than just
saying OIDs when we're actually looking up the OID and then adding a
PlanInvalItem which includes PROCOID and the syscache hash value.

Attached is a patch with the proposed change (against master, the back
branches require slightly different patches due to nearby wording
changes).

Thanks!

Stephen

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > Attached is a patch with the proposed change (against master, the back
> > branches require slightly different patches due to nearby wording
> > changes).
>
> Already done, after a bit of research into when things actually changed.

Awesome, thanks!

Stephen

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Attached is a patch with the proposed change (against master, the back
> branches require slightly different patches due to nearby wording
> changes).

Already done, after a bit of research into when things actually changed.
        regards, tom lane

On 2015/09/10 23:31, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>>> Attached is a patch with the proposed change (against master, the back
>>> branches require slightly different patches due to nearby wording
>>> changes).
>>
>> Already done, after a bit of research into when things actually changed.
>
> Awesome, thanks!

Thank you, Stephen and Tom.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita