On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:27 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Justin Pryzby writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:36:38AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >> In joinpath.c three times we reference "extra_lateral_rels" (with
> >> underscores like it's a field), but as far as I can tell that's not a
> >> field
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:32 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> No, I take that back. There were no references to extra_lateral_rels
> after that commit; these comments were added by 45be99f8c, about
> six weeks later. The latter was a pretty large patch and had
> presumably been under development for quite s
I wrote:
> Justin Pryzby writes:
>> It looks like a loose end from
>> commit edca44b1525b3d591263d032dc4fe500ea771e0e
> Yeah :-(. I'm usually pretty careful about grepping for comment
> references as well as code references to a field when I do something
> like that, but obviously I missed that
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:36:38AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
>> In joinpath.c three times we reference "extra_lateral_rels" (with
>> underscores like it's a field), but as far as I can tell that's not a
>> field anywhere in the source code, and looking at the code that
>>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:36:38AM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> In joinpath.c three times we reference "extra_lateral_rels" (with
> underscores like it's a field), but as far as I can tell that's not a
> field anywhere in the source code, and looking at the code that
> follows it seems like it sho
In joinpath.c three times we reference "extra_lateral_rels" (with
underscores like it's a field), but as far as I can tell that's not a
field anywhere in the source code, and looking at the code that
follows it seems like it should be referencing "lateral_relids" (and
the "extra" is really "extra [
