| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: | 2021-04-23 15:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1356997.1619193395@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:15 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I'm curious. The FmgrBuiltin struct includes the "strict" flag, so
>>> that would "lock down the value" of the strict flag, wouldn't it?
>> It does, but that's much more directly a property of the function's
>> C code than parallel-safety is.
> I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think having the "strict" flag
> in FmgrBuiltin isn't that nice either.
Yeah, if we could readily do without it, we probably would. But the
function call mechanism itself is responsible for implementing strictness,
so it *has* to have that flag available.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-04-23 16:19:59 | Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-23 15:53:35 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |