On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Hi Fujii, > > 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,
Yes, you're right. My careless mistake... :( > 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. Could you do that if possible? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
