Commit83d8065

committed

Remove obsolete comment

The idea to use a union in the definition of RangeTblEntry is clearlynot being pursued.Reviewed-by: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>Discussion:https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4b27fc50-8cd6-46f5-ab20-88dbaadca645@eisentraut.org

1 parent085e759 commit83d8065Copy full SHA for 83d8065

File tree

-6

lines changed

-6

lines changed

Lines changed: 0 additions & 6 deletions

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -1029,12 +1029,6 @@ typedef struct RangeTblEntry`
`1029`	`1029`
`1030`	`1030`	`RTEKindrtekind;/* see above */`
`1031`	`1031`
`1032`		`-/*`
`1033`		`- * XXX the fields applicable to only some rte kinds should be merged into`
`1034`		`- * a union. I didn't do this yet because the diffs would impact a lot of`
`1035`		`- * code that is being actively worked on. FIXME someday.`
`1036`		`- */`
`1037`		`-`
`1038`	`1032`	`/*`
`1039`	`1033`	`* Fields valid for a plain relation RTE (else zero):`
`1040`	`1034`	`*`

Comments

(0)