On 2016-07-28 16:44:37 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > 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.
> Attached patch (pg_replication_origin_xact_reset_9.6.patch) fixes this.
> We need to apply this at least before RC1 of PostgreSQL9.6 will be released
> because the patch needs the change of catalog version.
> >> 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?
> What about the attched patch (pg_replication_origin_xact_reset_9.5.patch)?
except for the strictness remark in the other email, these look sane to
me. Do you want to push them? I'll do so by Wednesday otherwise, to
leave some room before the next RC.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: