Re: Invalid primary_slot_name triggers warnings in all processes on reload
| От | Fujii Masao |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Invalid primary_slot_name triggers warnings in all processes on reload |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAHGQGwEhzwnpgP=k3hyfxssNisZzxM1Ttth8hEBGD9vBL30=9Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: Invalid primary_slot_name triggers warnings in all processes on reload ("Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>) |
| Ответы |
RE: Invalid primary_slot_name triggers warnings in all processes on reload
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 5:00 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Dear Fujii-san, Thanks for testing and reviewing! > > No comments on the latest patches — maybe that’s a good > > sign of their quality? ;) > > > > Anyway, unless there are any objections, I plan to commit at least > > the 0001 patch and backpatch it to all supported branches. I've > > attached the patches for the back branches for reference. > > FYI, the patch could not be applied cleanly for PG13 and 14 for my env: I first applied the patch to v15, then used git cherry-pick to backpatch it to v14 and v13 without any issues. You can probably do the same to apply it to those branches. > Cosmetic comments: > > ``` > + if (!ReplicationSlotValidateNameInternal(name, > + &err_code, &err_msg, &err_hint)) > ... > -ReplicationSlotValidateName(const char *name, int elevel) > +ReplicationSlotValidateNameInternal(const char *name, > + int *err_code, char **err_msg, char **err_hint) > ``` > > Patches for older branches have strange indent, maybe because > "bool allow_reserved_name" is just removed. Should we move up arguments? Since pgindent doesn't treat the current indentation as an issue, I'm fine keeping it as is, though I don't mind changing it if you think it's worth updating. > > Regarding the backpatch: in v17 and earlier, since errhint_internal() > > doesn't exist, I used errhint() instead. That means the hint message > > might be translated twice, but I think that's minor and acceptable. > > Or do you think we should instead backpatch errhint_internal() to > > those older branches to avoid the double translation? > > Personally considered it can be added... Just to confirm - you'd prefer backpatching errhint_internal() to v17 and earlier branches, and then updating the patch to use it to avoid double translation, right? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: