Very minor: Remove outdated comment from rabbit_msg_store

[gomoripeti]

Proposed Changes

Sorry for providing a PR instead of asking the question: Is that correct that "The value close is never stored in the file handle ets since commit 32816c0."?

I found this comment while investigating #14181. As far as I can see the value can never be close so it cannot be the cause of the bug.

During the same investigation I got another question. Comment says (https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server/blob/v4.1.2/deps/rabbit/src/rabbit_msg_store.erl#L520-L522)

Get index for all Msgids in File.
It's possible that we get no results here if compaction
was in progress. That's OK: we will try again with those
MsgIds to get them from the new file.

But compaction (as opposed to combination) doesn't create new files. Only moves messages within the same file. How can a message be moved to a "new file" (assuming it has positive refcount)?

Types of Changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to this project?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes issue #NNNN)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause an observable behavior change in existing systems)
• Documentation improvements (corrections, new content, etc)
• Cosmetic change (whitespace, formatting, etc)
• Build system and/or CI

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.
You can also fill these out after creating the PR.
If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask on the mailing list.
We're here to help!
This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
• I have signed the CA (see https://cla.pivotal.io/sign/rabbitmq)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• All tests pass locally with my changes
• If relevant, I have added necessary documentation to https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-website
• If relevant, I have added this change to the first version(s) in release-notes that I expect to introduce it

Further Comments

[michaelklishin]

@lhoguin any objections from you?

[lhoguin]

But compaction (as opposed to combination) doesn't create new files. Only moves messages within the same file. How can a message be moved to a "new file" (assuming it has positive refcount)?

Not only that but compaction now doesn't prevent reading from the file at all so we should not reach the [] clause anymore.