Re: Parallel safety of contrib extensions

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Winfield, Steven" <Steven(dot)Winfield(at)gam(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel safety of contrib extensions
Date: 2020-06-11 07:22:09
Message-ID: 20200611072209.GE365021@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:40:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Winfield, Steven" <Steven(dot)Winfield(at)gam(dot)com> writes:
>> There was a thread about this back in 2016[1], but I've just been
>> bitten by it and wondered if any (more) extensions, particularly
>> btree_gist, will have their operators/functions verified and marked as
>> parallel-safe?
>
> Whenever somebody does the legwork and sends a patch ...

This would not be a complicated change as it requires creating a new
version script for those modules. You can look at commit 20eb273 as
an example, and the work is even simpler now that we just need update
scripts when bumping a module's version (those named foo--1.0--1.1.sql
and not foo--1.1.sql). Here is the related documentation:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/extend-extensions.html#id-1.8.3.20.15
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laura Smith 2020-06-11 07:29:17 Changing from security definer to security invoker without dropping ?
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2020-06-11 00:15:09 Re: Help with plpython3u