| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Date: | 2021-06-14 06:40:53 |
| Message-ID: | 164474.1623652853@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Why do you think we don't need to check index AM functions?
Primarily because index AMs and opclasses can only be defined by
superusers, and the superuser is assumed to know what she's doing.
More generally, we've never made any provisions for the properties
of index AMs or opclasses to change on-the-fly. I doubt that doing
so could possibly be justified on a cost-benefit basis.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-06-14 06:47:40 | Re: Avoid stuck of pbgench due to skipped transactions |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-06-14 06:35:51 | Re: Decoding speculative insert with toast leaks memory |