jian he <jian.universal...@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.
regards, tom lane
