Re: wrong comments in ClassifyUtilityCommandAsReadOnly

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 18:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > Another reason I deleted that is that
> > since the file contains helper functions, I didn't want to write a new
> > comment based on what functions are there now as it may put someone
> > else off from adding new ones if the new one doesn't fit the comment.
>
> Perhaps we could define it as "Support routines for dealing with
> DefElem nodes".  You're right that maybe someone would want to
> throw in something else, but would it really belong?  The file's
> charter seems far narrower now than it once was.

I felt that it was better to leave the scope a bit wider than that,
but I don't feel very strongly, so I've pushed it with your wording
suggestion.

Thanks

David