Re: some unused parameters cleanup

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: some unused parameters cleanup
Date: 2020-08-26 13:32:34
Message-ID: 2814187.1598448754@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amul Sul 2020-08-26 13:32:55 Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN
Previous Message Sait Talha Nisanci 2020-08-26 13:13:41 RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)