From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset |
Date: | 2022-02-21 05:50:46 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoACPGYxUQzyPNYJ2kx6oJm5yJnxg81q81EwWKV8V07VGg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:36 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> (Author and committer added in CC.)
>
> While reviewing the code of a bunch of SRF functions in the core code,
> I have noticed that the two functions mentioned in $subject are marked
> as proretset but both functions don't return a set of tuples, just one
> record for the object given in input. It is also worth noting that
> prorows is set to 1.
Thanks for pointing it out. Agreed.
>
> This looks like a copy-pasto error that has spread around. The error
> on pg_stat_get_subscription_worker is recent as of 8d74fc9, and the
> one on pg_stat_get_replication_slot has been introduced in 3fa17d3,
> meaning that REL_14_STABLE got it wrong for the second part.
>
> I am aware about the discussions on the parent view for the first
> case and its design issues, but it does not change the fact that we'd
> better address the second case on HEAD IMO.
>
> Thoughts?
Agreed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-02-21 05:52:18 | Re: Separate the result of \watch for each query execution (psql) |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2022-02-21 05:45:10 | Re: postgres_fdw: commit remote (sub)transactions in parallel during pre-commit |