| 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>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Something is rotten in publication drop |
| Date: | 2017-06-20 19:18:53 |
| Message-ID: | 3887.1497986333@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 Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hm, patch looks okay, but while eyeballing it I started to wonder
>> why in the world is pg_get_publication_tables marked prosecdef?
>> If that has any consequences at all, they're probably bad.
>> There are exactly no other built-in functions that have that set.
> Should we add that to the opr_sanity tests?
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I can imagine that someday
there will be prosecdef built-in functions ... but probably, there
would never be so many that maintaining the expected-results list
would be hard.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2017-06-20 19:22:45 | Re: postgresql transactons not fully isolated |
| Previous Message | J Chapman Flack | 2017-06-20 19:08:41 | Re: postgresql transactons not fully isolated |