Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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