From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4 |
Date: | 2018-05-10 17:16:17 |
Message-ID: | 23502.1525972577@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The release notes say:
> ALTER FUNCTION pg_catalog.ts_rewrite(tsquery, tsquery, tsquery) PARALLEL
> UNSAFE;
> But when I pull pg_proc.h from 10.4, I find:
> DATA(insert OID = 3684 ( ts_rewrite PGNSP PGUID 12 1 0 0 0 f f f f t f i s
> 3 0 3615 "3615 3615 3615" ...
> Which I think means the function is still marked parallel safe. Am I
> missing something?
Oh ... that's a mistake in the release notes :-(. The 3-argument form of
ts_rewrite doesn't execute any user-supplied query; AFAICS it's not any
less safe than anything else. The 2-argument form runs a user-supplied
query string, and *does* need to be marked unsafe. So the patch got
it right, but then we got confused while making the notes.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-05-10 17:38:41 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-10 17:13:24 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |