Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?
Date: 2018-11-29 23:03:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2018-11-29 16:23:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Generally, I think Andres is wrong to argue that immutability
> shouldn't mean *anything* across major versions. If we can readily
> foresee that something is going to change in the future, then we
> shouldn't mark it immutable. However:

I was too glib/brief. All I meant is that we shouldn't take immutable to
*guarantee* anything across major versions. We, of course, shouldn't
break things willy-nilly, and consider the consequences of such
potential breaking changes. Including having to reindex. It's not like
that's only the case for changing immutable functions, the index storage
itself etc also matter.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2018-11-29 23:04:23 Re: [PATCH] Change "checkpoint starting" message to use "wal"
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2018-11-29 23:00:40 Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support