On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>> >> On 2016-06-30 10:14:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> >>> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.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?
Pushed since right now I have time to do that. Anyway, thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
