Re: Remove unused function parameters, part 2: replication

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remove unused function parameters, part 2: replication
Date: 2025-11-29 06:33:40
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JBkYFRiMr0u296KZ9vD12LN77gD1Lyi3NQ5P=YCYU=Xg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 2:54 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> RetainDeadTuplesData *rdt_data in can_advance_nonremovable_xid(): 228c37086855
> RetainDeadTuplesData *rdt_data in resume_conflict_info_retention(): 0d48d393d465
>

All nearby static functions introduced for the same feature have
passed this RetainDeadTuplesData structure. At this point, it is not
used but it can be used in future. So, I'm not sure if it is a good
idea to remove it now. Added Hou-San to see if he has any opinion on
this.

> StringInfo s in apply_handle_origin(): 665d1fad99e7
>

All apply_handle_* functions passed the same parameter and that
function has some TODO as well, so again not sure if it is a good idea
to remove it.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-11-29 07:12:27 Re: Simplify code building the LR conflict messages
Previous Message jian he 2025-11-29 02:46:35 Re: Emitting JSON to file using COPY TO