From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? |
Date: | 2018-11-27 00:19:51 |
Message-ID: | 20181127001951.6oteqpqgi46gw3ya@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-11-26 19:14:24 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 11/26/18 7:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-11-26 19:04:46 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> Not intentional. Though, sitting here chatting with Stephen about it, I
> >> am now wondering if pg_config() should actually be marked immutable:
> >>
> >> select * from pg_config() where name = 'VERSION';
> >> name | setting
> >> ---------+-----------------
> >> VERSION | PostgreSQL 10.5
> >> (1 row)
> >>
> >> [...upgrade the postgres binaries...]
> >>
> >> select * from pg_config() where name = 'VERSION';
> >> name | setting
> >> ---------+-----------------
> >> VERSION | PostgreSQL 10.6
> >> (1 row)
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Umm, this is a minor version not major.
Oops.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-27 00:21:56 | Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-27 00:17:44 | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |