| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marc Bachmann <marc(dot)brookman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, jeremy(at)musicsmith(dot)net, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #16040: PL/PGSQL RETURN QUERY statement never uses a parallel plan |
| Date: | 2021-10-03 03:48:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3735893.1633232886@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Marc Bachmann <marc(dot)brookman(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A function that inserts data and tries to return with a table now results in the error `query is not a SELECT`.
> In previous versions that query succeeded.
Hmm ... I'm a bit surprised that that worked before, but since it did,
we shouldn't break it. It looks like this was an accidental side-effect
of refactoring rather than something intentional. Will look closer
tomorrow or so.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-03 17:04:19 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Marc Bachmann | 2021-10-03 02:20:17 | Re: BUG #16040: PL/PGSQL RETURN QUERY statement never uses a parallel plan |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-10-03 04:05:17 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-03 03:34:38 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |