| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? |
| Date: | 2018-11-27 00:16:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20181127001600.GM3415@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2018-11-26 19:04:46 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> > So the correct answer is probably to mark pg_config() stable, but it
> > still seems to be parallel safe to me.
>
> I don't think we should consider immutability to mean anything across
> major versions. What'd be helped by doing that? We'd have to rule out
> any behaviour change to any immutable function for that to make
> sense. Including making an immutable function not immutable anymore.
Then we have to require that all indexes built with immutable functions
be rebuilt when someone does a pg_upgrade from one major version to the
next.
Not to mention that the issue at hand isn't a major version upgrade
anyway, it's a minor version change...
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-27 00:17:44 | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-27 00:14:35 | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |