Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2016-06-30 10:14:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: >>> As far as I read the code of the function, those arguments don't seem to >>> be necessary. So I'm afraid that the pg_proc entry for the function might >>> be incorrect and those two arguments should be removed from the definition.
>> Sure looks that way from here. Copy-and-paste from the previous >> line in pg_proc.h, perhaps? > Yes, that's clearly wrong. Damn. Can't fix that for 9.5 anymore. The > function isn't all that important (especially not from SQL), but still, > that's annoying. I'm inclined to just remove the args in 9.6. We could > also add a note to the 9.5 docs, adding that the arguments are there by > error? Yeah, seems like the best thing to do. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers