Re: pg_create_logical_replication_slot argument incongruency

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Florin Irion <irionr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_create_logical_replication_slot argument incongruency
Date: 2022-09-20 01:33:24
Message-ID: YykYZI8RChKycDe9@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 07:02:16PM +0200, Florin Irion wrote:
> This was introduced in commit 19890a06.
>
> IMHO we should use the documented argument name `two_phase` and change the
> function to accept it.
>
> What do you think?

19890a0 is included in REL_14_STABLE, and changing an argument name is
not acceptable in a stable branch as it would imply a catversion
bump. Let's change the docs so as we document the parameter as
"twophase", instead.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-09-20 01:50:37 Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?)
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2022-09-20 01:31:22 Re: pg_upgrade test failure