Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat
Date: 2018-11-02 23:02:36
Message-ID: 20181102230236.GB1899@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:27:39AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You actually do a lot, moving just one person with MP as initials to
> consider moving the function as being parallel-safe. Thanks for the
> points you raised, what needs to be done looks clear now.

So anybody has an objection with marking the function as parallel-safe?
I'd like to do so if that's not the case and close the case.

What has been raised on this thread is more than I hoped first. Thanks
Amit and Robert for the additional input!
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-11-02 23:12:15 Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-11-02 22:59:37 Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces