| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety |
| Date: | 2021-06-09 16:16:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ-7mTbgbrHtZB8ipr5QadBDRn_dPZEomw1CF_O1EQL6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:43 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> There are specific cases where there's a good reason to worry.
> For example, if we assume blindly that domain_in() is parallel
> safe, we will have cause to regret that. But I don't find that
> to be a reason why we need to lock down everything everywhere.
> We need to understand the tradeoffs involved in what we check,
> and apply checks that are likely to avoid problems, while not
> being too nanny-ish.
Yeah, that's exactly how I feel about it, too.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-09 16:19:18 | Re: when the startup process doesn't |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-09 16:05:10 | Re: Multiple hosts in connection string failed to failover in non-hot standby mode |