|From:||Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: SQL-standard function body|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:54:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:35:14PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2021-04-08 01:41:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> FWIW, I think the long-term drift of things is definitely that
> >> we want to have the querystring available everywhere. Code like
> >> executor_errposition is from an earlier era before we were trying
> >> to enforce that. In particular, if the querystring is available in
> >> the leader and not the workers, then you will get different error
> >> reporting behavior in parallel query than non-parallel query, which
> >> is surely a bad thing.
> > Yea, I think it's a sensible direction - but I think we should put the
> > line in the sand earlier on / higher up than ExecInitParallelPlan().
> Indeed, I agree that enforcing the availability of querystring
> everywhere sounds like a sensible thing to do in terms of consistency,
> and that's my impression when I scanned the parallel execution code,
> and I don't really get why SQL function bodies should not bind by this
> rule. Would people object if I add an open item to track that?
It makes sense, +1 for an open item.
|Next Message||Julien Rouhaud||2021-04-08 11:19:36||Re: SQL-standard function body|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2021-04-08 10:59:02||Re: DETAIL for wrong scram password|