RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety

From: "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Date: 2021-04-22 07:27:28
Message-ID: TYAPR01MB2990390CF2456EB228EF5A54FE469@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
> I agree that it's better to mark the function with correct parallel safety lable.
> Especially for the above functions which will be executed in parallel mode.
> It will be friendly to developer and user who is working on something related to
> parallel test.
>
> So, I attached the patch to mark the above functions parallel safe.

Thank you, the patch looks good. Please register it with the next CF if not yet.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-04-22 07:31:24 Re: Replication slot stats misgivings
Previous Message Ian Zagorskikh 2021-04-22 07:21:24 Re: libpq compression