Dear Fujii-san,
> 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.
I did same approach and confirmed it could be applied well.
> > 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.
I do not have strong opinion neither, but I still think it can be updated.
> 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?
Exactly, but I want to ask other Seniors as well.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
