Re: [HACKERS] samekeys

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> This basically says that key1, which is the old key, has to match key2
> for the length of key1.  If key2 has extra keys after that, that is
> fine.  We will still consider the keys equal.  The old code obviously
> was broken and badly thought out.
> ...
> I am unsure if samekeys should just test the first key for equality, or
> the full length of key1 as I have done.

The comment in front of samekeys claimed:
*       It isn't necessary to check that each sublist exactly contain*       the same elements because if the routine
thatbuilt these*       sublists together is correct, having one element in common*       implies having all elements in
common.

Was that wrong?  Or, perhaps, it was once right but no longer?
It sounded like fragile coding to me, but I didn't have reason
to know it was broken...
        regards, tom lane