Re: Remove unused function parameters, part 2: replication

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Remove unused function parameters, part 2: replication
Date: 2025-12-01 06:49:25
Message-ID: aS06dX2pJKCDrCZ0@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 01:39:19PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> I am pretty unconvinced this kind of stuff is worth the noise they produce in
> the more general case too.

I agree that it's noisy and time consuming to review, that's the drawback of using
automated tools when they find and produce a noticeable number of changes.

I'd say the tool is there [1], we know we can use it if we feel the need and the
energy to review.

We can still continue to fix them when we cross them "accidentally".

That said, it somehow sounds weird to wait to cross them accidentally knowing we
have the tool to find them, so I'm still not convinced that just ignoring them
is the right thing to do.

[1]: https://github.com/bdrouvot/coccinelle_on_pg/blob/main/misc/unused_function_parameters.cocci

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2025-12-01 06:57:02 Re: Row pattern recognition
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2025-12-01 06:45:34 Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart