Re: pg_replication_origin_xact_reset() and its argument variables

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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 <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> >> On 2016-06-30 10:14:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >>> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)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