Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: andres(at)anarazel(dot)de
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at, mail(at)joeconway(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?
Date: 2018-11-30 08:30:23
Message-ID: 20181130.173023.29567705.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:03:00 -0800, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in <20181129230300(dot)vkj3csjwk7jt2cfv(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de>
> Hi,
>
> 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.

FWIW, I agree to this.

# And returning to the topic, I vote for pg_config should be "stable".

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrien NAYRAT 2018-11-30 08:46:57 Re: New GUC to sample log queries
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2018-11-30 08:26:27 Re: [HACKERS] proposal - Default namespaces for XPath expressions (PostgreSQL 11)