On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 5:00 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Fujii-san,
Thanks for testing and reviewing!
> > No comments on the latest patches — maybe that’s a good
> > sign of their quality? ;)
> >
> > Anyway, unless there are any objections, I plan to commit at least
> > the 0001 patch and backpatch it to all supported branches. I've
> > attached the patches for the back branches for reference.
>
> FYI, the patch could not be applied cleanly for PG13 and 14 for my env:
I first applied the patch to v15, then used git cherry-pick to backpatch it
to v14 and v13 without any issues. You can probably do the same to apply it
to those branches.
> Cosmetic comments:
>
> ```
> + if (!ReplicationSlotValidateNameInternal(name,
> + &err_code, &err_msg,
&err_hint))
> ...
> -ReplicationSlotValidateName(const char *name, int elevel)
> +ReplicationSlotValidateNameInternal(const char *name,
> + int *err_code, char **err_msg, char
**err_hint)
> ```
>
> Patches for older branches have strange indent, maybe because
> "bool allow_reserved_name" is just removed. Should we move up arguments?
Since pgindent doesn't treat the current indentation as an issue,
I'm fine keeping it as is, though I don't mind changing it if you think
it's worth updating.
> > Regarding the backpatch: in v17 and earlier, since errhint_internal()
> > doesn't exist, I used errhint() instead. That means the hint message
> > might be translated twice, but I think that's minor and acceptable.
> > Or do you think we should instead backpatch errhint_internal() to
> > those older branches to avoid the double translation?
>
> Personally considered it can be added...
Just to confirm - you'd prefer backpatching errhint_internal() to v17 and
earlier branches, and then updating the patch to use it to avoid double
translation, right?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
