| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL-standard function body |
| Date: | 2021-04-08 05:16:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1819824.1617858962@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:22:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Buildfarm suggests this has some issues under force_parallel_mode.
>> I'm wondering about missed fields in outfuncs/readfuncs, or the like.
> The problem looks a bit more fundamental to me, as there seems to be
> some confusion with the concept of what should be the query string
> when it comes to prosqlbody with a parallel run, as it replaces prosrc
> in some cases where the function uses SQL as language. If the
> buildfarm cannot be put back to green, could it be possible to revert
> this patch?
Andres pushed a stopgap fix. We might end up reverting the patch
altogether for v14, but I don't want to be hasty. This should be enough
to let people take advantage of the last few hours before feature freeze.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-04-08 05:20:14 | Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze) |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2021-04-08 04:54:39 | Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans |