Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat
Date: 2018-11-06 05:12:53
Message-ID: 20181106051253.GF1814@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 08:02:36AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So anybody has an objection with marking the function as parallel-safe?
> I'd like to do so if that's not the case and close the case.

And committed.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-11-06 05:15:51 Re: Strange failure in LWLock on skink in REL9_5_STABLE
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2018-11-06 04:53:37 Re: [bug fix] Produce a crash dump before main() on Windows