Re: pg_recvlogical requires -d but not described on the documentation

On 2025/03/21 10:12, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
> 
>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me.
>>
>> I'm considering whether to back-patch these changes to older versions.
>> Since pg_recvlogical --drop-slot worked without --dbname in 9.4
>> but started failing unintentionally in 9.5, it could be considered a bug.
>> However, this behavior has existed for a long time without complaints or
>> bug reports, and there was no clear documentation stating that
>> --drop-slot should work without --dbname.
>>
>> Given this, I think that also we could treat it as not a bug and apply
>> the change only to the master branch. What do you think should we
>> back-patch it as a bug fix or apply it only to master?
> 
> Personally considered, such a long-standing but harmless bug can be regarded as
> the specification. So, I vote that this is an enhancement and be applied only to
> master.

+1

I've updated the commit messages for both patches and also revised
the code comments in the 0002 patch. The updated patches are attached.

Unless there are any objections, I'm thinking to commit them.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION