typo fix
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t39693psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v6 (message #6), July 28, 2026 at 05:00 AM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t39693_6 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t39693_6 && git checkout t39693_6Patchset v6 (message #6) is on t39693_6
Hi,
It seems to me that EquivalenceClass, the struct/type name, has been
misspelled as 'EquivalenceClasses' a couple of times in the comment above
its definition.
Attached fixes that.
Thanks,
Amit
Attachments:
EquivalenceClass-typo.patchtext/plain; charset=UTF-8; name=EquivalenceClass-typo.patchDownload+2-2
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
It seems to me that EquivalenceClass, the struct/type name, has been
misspelled as 'EquivalenceClasses' a couple of times in the comment above
its definition.
EquivalenceClasses stands for the plural of EquivalenceClass. So
thinking like that...
- * EquivalenceClasses + * EquivalenceClass
... This is fine.
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys, letting + * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKeys, letting
... But not that.
--
Michael
Thank you for looking.
On 2018/11/20 14:13, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
It seems to me that EquivalenceClass, the struct/type name, has been
misspelled as 'EquivalenceClasses' a couple of times in the comment above
its definition.EquivalenceClasses stands for the plural of EquivalenceClass. So
thinking like that...- * EquivalenceClasses + * EquivalenceClass... This is fine.
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys, letting + * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKeys, letting... But not that.
Hmm, I classified this one as a typo too, because the sentence calls
EquivalenceClasses "the base structure for ...", whereas I think
'EquivalenceClass' is the base structure of PathKey. That said, I don't
mind to using EquivalanceClasses when speaking of *instances* of
EquivalenceClass, of which I see many in the source code:
$ git grep EquivalenceClasses
postgres_fdw.c: * Determine which EquivalenceClasses might be
postgres_fdw.c: /* Get the list of interesting EquivalenceClasses. */
copyfuncs.c: /* EquivalenceClasses are never moved, so just shallow-copy
copyfuncs.c: /* EquivalenceClasses are never copied, so shallow-copy the
copyfuncs.c: /* EquivalenceClasses are never copied, so shallow-copy the
optimizer/README:EquivalenceClasses
optimizer/README:merging two existing EquivalenceClasses. At the end of
<so on>
But maybe I'm being overly nit-picky. :)
Thanks,
Amit
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys, letting + * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKeys, letting
... But not that.
The reason that's not good is that it creates a singular-plural mismatch.
If you'd also changed "PathKeys" to "PathKey", it would still read OK,
though I don't think it's an improvement particularly.
(Hm ... though arguably, "structure" should be "structures" if we're
going to let it stand as plural.)
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:58:22AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The reason that's not good is that it creates a singular-plural mismatch.
If you'd also changed "PathKeys" to "PathKey", it would still read OK,
though I don't think it's an improvement particularly.(Hm ... though arguably, "structure" should be "structures" if we're
going to let it stand as plural.)
Indeed, missed that. This first sentence mentions "orderings" for those
PathKeys, which refers to multiple PathKeys, so actually Amit's patch
seems to be fine, no?
--
Michael
On 2018/11/20 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 02:00:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys, letting + * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKeys, letting... But not that.
The reason that's not good is that it creates a singular-plural mismatch.
Hmm, yeah.
If you'd also changed "PathKeys" to "PathKey", it would still read OK,
though I don't think it's an improvement particularly.
So,
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys,
+ * We also use EquivalenceClass as the base structure for PathKey,(Hm ... though arguably, "structure" should be "structures" if we're
going to let it stand as plural.)
vs.
- * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structure for PathKeys,
+ * We also use EquivalenceClasses as the base structures for PathKeys,If I'm understanding this right, aren't different orderings represented by
different PathKey nodes considered equivalent if they share the base
EquivalenceClass? If that's the case, I think the former reads better.
Thanks,
Amit