From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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: | 2021-07-23 13:25:22 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobtGGHZ4THNE=kg4dP+fsbPmh2fb3HnUMwHdXLQzwnohg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I see here we have a mix of opinions from various people. Dilip seems
> to be favoring the approach where we provide some option to the user
> for partitioned tables and automatic behavior for non-partitioned
> tables but he also seems to have mild concerns about this behavior.
> OTOH, Greg and Hou-San seem to favor an approach where we can provide
> an option to the user for both partitioned and non-partitioned tables.
> I am also in favor of providing an option to the user for the sake of
> consistency in behavior and not trying to introduce a special kind of
> invalidation as it doesn't serve the purpose for partitioned tables.
> Robert seems to be in favor of automatic behavior but it is not very
> clear to me if he is fine with dealing differently for partitioned and
> non-partitioned relations. Robert, can you please provide your opinion
> on what do you think is the best way to move forward here?
I thought we had agreed on handling partitioned and unpartitioned
tables differently, but maybe I misunderstood the discussion.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2021-07-23 14:22:37 | Fix memory leak when output postgres_fdw's "Relations" |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-07-23 13:22:32 | Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers) |