| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset |
| Date: | 2022-02-21 05:36:33 |
| Message-ID: | YhMk4RjoMK3CCXy2@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| proc-proretset.patch | text/x-diff | 1.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2022-02-21 05:45:10 | Re: postgres_fdw: commit remote (sub)transactions in parallel during pre-commit |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-21 05:34:53 | Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats |