| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure to CopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot() |
| Date: | 2019-05-18 01:30:07 |
| Message-ID: | 25386.1558143007@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 12:49, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Unless somebody else presses back hard against doing so *soon*, I'm
>> going to close this open issue. I don't think it's worth spending
>> further time arguing about a few characters.
> I'd say if we're not going to bother removing the unused param that
> there's not much point in renaming the function.
FWIW, I'm on the side of "we shouldn't change this". There's lots of
unused parameters in PG functions, and in most of those cases the API
is reasonable as it stands.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2019-05-18 01:31:05 | Re: Passing CopyMultiInsertInfo structure to CopyMultiInsertInfoNextFreeSlot() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-18 01:27:24 | Re: describe working as intended? |