From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, gajus(at)gajus(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |
Date: | 2018-11-27 03:55:03 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY45Mb6d98SkssBbodpwqyoBPFC4igKCvKx06xcy7JDCA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:47 PM Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm way less inclined to buy into the idea that it MUST be wrong, though.
> > Immutability is a promise about result stability and lack of side effects,
> > but it is not a promise about implementation details. There could be an
> > implementation reason not to run something in a parallel worker. Off the
> > top of my head, a possible example is "it's written in plfoo which hasn't
> > yet been made to work correctly in parallel workers".
>
> Now, see, that is an actual argument for making a difference. The other
> arguments in this thread were not, so say I.
I agree with you that Tom is the first person to make a real argument
for distinguishing these two things. And I think his argument is a
good one. I suspect that there are other cases too. I don't think
there are all that many cases, but I think they exist.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-27 03:56:29 | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-11-27 03:46:18 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |