On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> This looks related, but I think this is a different issue.
Sure.
> The real
> reason for this case is that row_number is marked as parallel_safe
> which seems to be wrong. I think it should be marked as
> parallel_unsafe.
Marking the function parallel safe doesn't seem wrong to me. The
non-parallel-safe part is that the input gets fed to it in different order
in different workers. And I don't really think that to be the function's
fault.
.m