From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Clément Prévost <prevostclement(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
Date: | 2016-06-14 17:14:21 |
Message-ID: | 20764.1465924461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I follow all of your reasoning except this. If we believe that the
>> parallel worker context line is useful, then it is a bug that plpgsql
>> suppresses it. If we don't believe it's useful, then we should get
>> rid of it. "Do nothing" is simply not a consistent stance here.
> Well, if PL/pgsql suppresses context and nobody's complained about
> that up until now, fixing it doesn't seem any more urgent than any
> other bug we've had for N releases.
I have not dug into the code enough to find out exactly what's happening
in Peter's complaint, but it seems like it would be a good idea to find
that out before arguing along these lines. It seems entirely likely
to me that this is somehow parallel-query-specific. Even if it isn't,
I don't buy your argument. Adding a new case in which context is
suppressed is a perfectly reasonable basis for thinking that an old
bug has acquired new urgency.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-14 17:51:29 | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-14 17:07:25 | Re: Rename max_parallel_degree? |