On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Pushed since right now I have time to do that. Anyway, thanks! 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
