Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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: 2019-02-17 14:25:34
Message-ID: 1ddcf022-7867-e35d-79fc-bdbffa1bb36e@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/30/18 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Closing out at least this part of the thread, committed and pushed,
master only.

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Karlsson 2019-02-17 14:31:05 Re: Add missing CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS table_name AS EXECUTE query;
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-02-17 13:58:22 Re: Conflict handling for COPY FROM