On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 1:28 PM Paul A Jungwirth <p...@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote: > Is there a reason you don't want to remove the required_outer > parameter altogether? I guess because it is such a common pattern to > pass it?
I think it's best to keep this parameter unchanged to maintain consistency with other functions that create path nodes in pathnode.c. > Do you think it is worth keeping this assertion?: > > - > - /* All child paths must have same parameterization */ > - Assert(bms_equal(PATH_REQ_OUTER(subpath), required_outer)); > > I understand any failure would trigger one of the prior asserts > instead, but it does communicate an extra requirement, and there is no > cost. I don't think it's a good idea to keep this Assert: with this change it becomes redundant. > But I'd be fine with committing this patch as-is. I've pushed this patch. Thanks for review. Thanks Richard
