| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? |
| Date: | 2018-11-30 15:32:44 |
| Message-ID: | 17826.1543591964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/30/18 3:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> # And returning to the topic, I vote for pg_config should be "stable".
> And on that note, Does this change does warrant backpatching, or should
> be applied to master only?
I don't think back-patching the catalog change is really a good idea.
The amount of work involved (e.g. release-noting how to perform the
update on existing databases) is way out of proportion to the benefit
for this particular case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-11-30 15:34:56 | Re: Hash Joins vs. Bloom Filters / take 2 |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-11-30 15:15:37 | Re: Flexible permissions for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |