Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LVDAvXyhL2SeWKMvwuybWtQv5CykV-Na3Gm7970DOYew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 12:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: why do hash index builds use smgrextend() for new splitpoint pages
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Buffer Manager and Contention