Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Elsewhere in this thread I suggested getting rid of the parallel worker
>>> context by default (except for debugging), but if we do want to keep it,
>>> then it seems to be a bug that a PL/pgSQL function can just eliminate it.

> This is currently listed as an open item, but it doesn't seem very
> actionable to me. The fact that PL/plpgsql chucks the existing
> context instead of appending to it is presumably a property of
> PL/plpgsql, not parallel query, and changing that seems like it ought
> to be out of scope for 9.6.

FWIW, I follow all of your reasoning except this. If we believe that the
parallel worker context line is useful, then it is a bug that plpgsql
suppresses it. If we don't believe it's useful, then we should get
rid of it. "Do nothing" is simply not a consistent stance here.

regards, tom lane