Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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