Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-06-30 10:14:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> As far as I read the code of the function, those arguments don't seem to
>>> be necessary. So I'm afraid that the pg_proc entry for the function might
>>> be incorrect and those two arguments should be removed from the definition.
>> Sure looks that way from here. Copy-and-paste from the previous
>> line in pg_proc.h, perhaps?
> Yes, that's clearly wrong. Damn. Can't fix that for 9.5 anymore. The
> function isn't all that important (especially not from SQL), but still,
> that's annoying. I'm inclined to just remove the args in 9.6. We could
> also add a note to the 9.5 docs, adding that the arguments are there by
> error?
Yeah, seems like the best thing to do.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
