Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly
Appearance settings

Commit 83d8065

Browse filesBrowse files
peterepetere
committed
Remove obsolete comment
The idea to use a union in the definition of RangeTblEntry is clearly not 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 parent 085e759 commit 83d8065
Copy full SHA for 83d8065

File tree

Expand file treeCollapse file tree

1 file changed

+0
-6
lines changed
Filter options
Expand file treeCollapse file tree

1 file changed

+0
-6
lines changed

‎src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h

Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h
-6Lines changed: 0 additions & 6 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1029,12 +1029,6 @@ typedef struct RangeTblEntry
10291029

10301030
RTEKind rtekind; /* see above */
10311031

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-
10381032
/*
10391033
* Fields valid for a plain relation RTE (else zero):
10401034
*

0 commit comments

Comments
0 (0)
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.