Re: some unused parameters cleanup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: some unused parameters cleanup
Date
Msg-id 2814187.1598448754@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: some unused parameters cleanup  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-08-25 18:59, Tom Lane wrote:
>> For some of these, there's an argument for keeping the unused parameter
>> for consistency with sibling functions that do use it.  Not sure how
>> important that is, though.

> I had meant to exclude cases like this from this patch set.  If you see 
> a case like this in *this* patch set, please point it out.

I'd been thinking specifically of the changes in pg_backup_archiver.c.
But now that I look around a bit further, there's already very little
consistency in that file about whether to pass the ArchiveHandle* pointer
everywhere.  So no further objection here.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sait Talha Nisanci
Date:
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Next
From: Amul Sul
Date:
Subject: Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN