| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ISN extension - wrong volatility level for isn_weak() function |
| Date: | 2025-03-14 16:18:42 |
| Message-ID: | 3080651.1741969122@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Viktor Holmberg <v(at)viktorh(dot)net> writes:
> However, cleaning things up to use GUC seems like it’d be bigger task, and also would only be an extra thing, as isn_weak function would need to stay in for backwards compatibility I assume.
Wouldn't be a big deal --- yes, accept_weak_input would need a bit of
modification, but it's not much. The main reason I suggested it was
that a GUC would be subject to RESET ALL and so it'd fix the pooler
hazard you pointed out.
> In terms of just fixing the immediate bug, I believe it’d just be to change isn.sql line 3423 and 2433:
No, we'd need to create an update script that uses ALTER FUNCTION.
Extension scripts are basically frozen once shipped.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-14 16:56:54 | Re: BUG #18851: Queries with xxx NOT IN (SELECT xxx FROM table) fail to run (or run very slowly) on v17 (v14 ok) |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2025-03-14 16:16:06 | BUG #18851: Queries with xxx NOT IN (SELECT xxx FROM table) fail to run (or run very slowly) on v17 (v14 ok) |