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
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) |