| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Gajus Kuizinas <gajus(at)gajus(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |
| Date: | 2018-11-27 00:34:15 |
| Message-ID: | 29466.1543278855@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
FWIW, I'm inclined to think that pg_config should be marked as stable
not immutable. Aside from the minor-version-upgrade issue, what if
you install new binaries that are the same version but built with
different configure flags?
The pg_config outputs are roughly as stable as initdb-inserted
catalog data, and we've never judged that functions that return
catalog data can be marked immutable.
There seems no reason it can't be parallel safe, though, since
worker processes should get the same answers as their parent.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-27 00:39:18 | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-27 00:34:03 | Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? |