Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 13:17:22 +0200
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Online checksums verification in the backend
Message-ID: <20200405111722.GH1206@nol>
References: 
 <CA+fd4k4B8QVxhQa8=5pf7SuDcB0vBhqzOn0c59FxVa99CF0ptQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200328121858.GA13605@nol>
 <CA+fd4k4--o41NxwN2kjfRn6W474R-P9D8aL8FW27nQmWm0++hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200403093911.GB1206@nol>
 <20200404090428.GD1206@nol>
 <CA+fd4k7c83ViCvZtochX9msnyigDjcNujphFSXdnd7QOaWXSqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200405084355.GF1206@nol>
 <CA+fd4k5VS_QAkdGwU-mwsr1z78XM7egixZ2bDhfeSJm4HCrRGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200405094459.GG1206@nol>
 <CA+fd4k4ymDsLam6RyrR6mquwpBqSzOC11WK7cCT69+jt6VBSCg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+fd4k4ymDsLam6RyrR6mquwpBqSzOC11WK7cCT69+jt6VBSCg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 08:01:36PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 06:08:06PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > >
> > > Why do we need two rows in the doc? For instance, replication slot
> > > functions have some optional arguments but there is only one row in
> > > the doc. So I think we don't need to change the doc from the previous
> > > version patch.
> > >
> >
> > I thought that if we document the function as pg_check_relation(regclass [,
> > fork]) users could think that the 2nd argument is optional, so that
> > pg_check_relation('something', NULL) could be a valid alias for the 1-argument
> > form, which it isn't.  After checking, I see that e.g. current_setting has the
> > same semantics and is documented the way you suggest, so fixed back to previous
> > version.
> >
> > > And I think these are not necessary as we already defined in
> > > include/catalog/pg_proc.dat:
> > >
> > > +CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pg_check_relation(
> > > +  IN relation regclass,
> > > +  OUT relid oid, OUT forknum integer, OUT failed_blocknum bigint,
> > > +  OUT expected_checksum integer, OUT found_checksum integer)
> > > +  RETURNS SETOF record STRICT VOLATILE LANGUAGE internal AS 'pg_check_relation'
> > > +  PARALLEL RESTRICTED;
> > > +
> > > +CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION pg_check_relation(
> > > +  IN relation regclass, IN fork text,
> > > +  OUT relid oid, OUT forknum integer, OUT failed_blocknum bigint,
> > > +  OUT expected_checksum integer, OUT found_checksum integer)
> > > +  RETURNS SETOF record STRICT VOLATILE LANGUAGE internal
> > > +  AS 'pg_check_relation_fork'
> > > +  PARALLEL RESTRICTED;
> > >
> >
> > Oh right this isn't required since there's no default value anymore, fixed.
> >
> > v9 attached.
> 
> Thank you for updating the patch! The patch looks good to me.
> 
> I've marked this patch as Ready for Committer. I hope this patch will
> get committed to PG13.
> 
Thanks a lot!