Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Elsewhere in this thread I suggested getting rid of the parallel worker
>>>> context by default (except for debugging), but if we do want to keep it,
>>>> then it seems to be a bug that a PL/pgSQL function can just eliminate it.
>
>> This is currently listed as an open item, but it doesn't seem very
>> actionable to me. The fact that PL/plpgsql chucks the existing
>> context instead of appending to it is presumably a property of
>> PL/plpgsql, not parallel query, and changing that seems like it ought
>> to be out of scope for 9.6.
>
> FWIW, I follow all of your reasoning except this. If we believe that the
> parallel worker context line is useful, then it is a bug that plpgsql
> suppresses it. If we don't believe it's useful, then we should get
> rid of it. "Do nothing" is simply not a consistent stance here.

Well, if PL/pgsql suppresses context and nobody's complained about
that up until now, fixing it doesn't seem any more urgent than any
other bug we've had for N releases. That would go on the 9.6 open
items list in the section entitled "Older Bugs", where it would have
plenty of company. Any time somebody wants to fix one of those, they
can, and that would be great, but there's no more or less urgency
right now than, say, four months ago, or six months from now. It
can't be said that this open item is holding up the release if it's
just a rediscovery of an existing behavior which somebody happens not
to like.

On the other hand, if PL/pgsql does not suppress context in general
but suppresses only this one particular bit of context from parallel
query, then that is probably a bug in new code which should be fixed
before release. But I don't think that's what is being argued.

Am I confused?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company