Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset
Date: 2022-02-24 06:32:55
Message-ID: Yhcml0fPu3COM78n@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:52:02AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Thanks, so you are okay with me pushing that patch just to HEAD.

Yes, I am fine with that. I am wondering about patching the second
function though, to avoid any risk of forgetting it, but I am fine to
leave that to your judgement.

> We don't want to backpatch this to 14 as this is a catalog change and
> won't cause any user-visible issue, is that correct?

Yup, that's a HEAD-only cleanup, I am afraid.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sadhuprasad Patro 2022-02-24 06:56:08 Re: Per-table storage parameters for TableAM/IndexAM extensions
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-02-24 06:32:01 Re: Patch a potential memory leak in describeOneTableDetails()