Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset
Date: 2022-02-25 03:27:24
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LVDAvXyhL2SeWKMvwuybWtQv5CykV-Na3Gm7970DOYew@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:52:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Thanks, so you are okay with me pushing that patch just to HEAD.
>
> Yes, I am fine with that. I am wondering about patching the second
> function though, to avoid any risk of forgetting it, but I am fine to
> leave that to your judgement.
>

The corresponding patch with other changes is not very far from being
ready to commit. So, will do it along with that.

> > We don't want to backpatch this to 14 as this is a catalog change and
> > won't cause any user-visible issue, is that correct?
>
> Yup, that's a HEAD-only cleanup, I am afraid.
>

Thanks, Done!

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-02-25 03:29:16 Re: Buffer Manager and Contention
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2022-02-25 03:24:29 Re: why do hash index builds use smgrextend() for new splitpoint pages