| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel worker error |
| Date: | 2017-08-30 13:20:40 |
| Message-ID: | 13948.1504099240@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We might need to redesign the GUC-propagation mechanism so it sends
>> the various internal representations of GUC values, not the user-visible
>> strings.
> That would probably be better in the long run, but I'm not keen to do
> it in a back-branch under time pressure.
Definitely a valid objection. But before assuming that this issue is
limited to SET ROLE, it'd be wise to push a bit on the other GUCs with
catalog-dependent values, to see if there are any others we need to
worry about. I"m okay with a narrow solution if SET ROLE really is
the only problem, but at this stage I'm not convinced of that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-08-30 13:22:46 | Re: expanding inheritance in partition bound order |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-30 12:42:55 | Re: Parallel worker error |