| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 5bih4k+4jfl6m39j23k(at)guerrillamail(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family |
| Date: | 2016-12-01 20:40:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYv8_fE2=t6roC==6FgvjU2Scdp5DsdvfUFoYXD-cwuKg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> <5bih4k+4jfl6m39j23k(at)guerrillamail(dot)com> writes:
>>> pg_proc shows that now() is marked as restricted, but transaction_timestamp() is marked as safe.
>
>> That's certainly silly, because they're equivalent. I should think
>> they're both safe. Robert?
>
> ... well, they would be if we passed down xactStartTimestamp to parallel
> workers, but I can't find any code that does that. In view of the fact that
> transaction_timestamp() is marked as parallel-safe, this is a bug in 9.6.
Yeah. Do you think we should arrange to pass that down, or change the marking?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-01 20:40:27 | Re: Broken SSL tests in master |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-01 20:32:17 | Re: Broken SSL tests in master |