Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions
Date: 2016-06-01 22:36:33
Message-ID: 574F6371.3040802@proxel.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/25/2016 03:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
>> On 05/25/2016 02:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I'd rather extend see us ALTER AGGREGATE to do this.
>
>> Wouldn't that prevent this from going into 9.6? I do not think changing
>> ALTER AGGREGATE is 9.6 materials.
>
> Well, it's debatable --- but if the patch to do it is small and the
> alternatives are really ugly, that would be an acceptable choice IMO.
> Certainly we'd want to add that capability eventually anyway.

Looked at this quickly and I do not think adding it would be what I
consider a small patch since we would essentially need to copy the
validation logic from DefineAggregate and AggregateCreate and modify it
to fit the alter case. I am leaning towards either either leaving the
aggregate functions alone or updating the catalog manually.

Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-06-01 23:39:01 Re: PostmasterPid not marked with PGDLLIMPORT
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-06-01 22:33:18 Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.