From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
Date: | 2016-06-08 14:07:08 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoayvFu8V3Z9H2ERVRyrFPztu4QPpckLot2-Ve4Se+J0rg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
>> dblink: Isn't changing dblink_fdw_validator pointless? The others I get.
>
> Yeah, but since it is just one function I think it makes sense to change it
> when we already are bumping the version of the extension. I think it makes
> sense to skip whole extensions, like chkpass or bloom, but if it is just a
> few functions where it does not matter, why not tag them as safe? Personally
> I think the churn which really matters is if we have to bump the extension
> version or not.
I broadly agree with that, but I'm slightly wary about giving people
the idea that parallel-safety will be checked in cases where it really
will not. The stuff that gets tested for parallel-safety is the stuff
actually mentioned in the query. Indirectly-referenced stuff will not
get tested, but if we start marking it that way, then we might create
confusion.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-06-08 14:16:22 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in postgres_fdw/deparse.c:1116 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-08 14:04:51 | Re: [BUGS] Routine analyze of single column prevents standard autoanalyze from running at all |