| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Functions Immutable but not parallel safe? |
| Date: | 2017-04-05 12:57:13 |
| Message-ID: | 15f58c83-7421-a7d4-865e-d308d842ce62@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/24/16 18:13, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm finding hard to imagine a reason why these might be unsafe, but
>> failed. I do notice they're all only used in information_schema.
>>
>> Could it just perhaps be that these just missed the verification
>> process the other functions went through to determine their parallel
>> safety?
> Yes, I think that's it. I went through pg_proc.h, but never looked at
> information_schema.sql.
This hasn't been fixed yet. It's easy to to, but taking a step back,
- Is there any reason an immutable function (that is not lying about it)
should be anything but parallel safe?
- If so, could CREATE FUNCTION default it that way?
- Maybe add a check to opr_sanity to make sure the default set of
functions is configured the way we want?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2017-04-05 13:06:04 | Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-04-05 12:42:20 | Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes |