From 83d8065b1f7477f4fb49e53ece0e6e0e516993fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Eisentraut Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:12:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Remove obsolete comment The idea to use a union in the definition of RangeTblEntry is clearly not being pursued. Reviewed-by: Andrew Dunstan Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4b27fc50-8cd6-46f5-ab20-88dbaadca645@eisentraut.org --- src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h b/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h index 9b709f03908..9b39aaa9aac 100644 --- a/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h +++ b/src/include/nodes/parsenodes.h @@ -1029,12 +1029,6 @@ typedef struct RangeTblEntry RTEKind rtekind; /* see above */ - /* - * XXX the fields applicable to only some rte kinds should be merged into - * a union. I didn't do this yet because the diffs would impact a lot of - * code that is being actively worked on. FIXME someday. - */ - /* * Fields valid for a plain relation RTE (else zero): *