Re: Functions Immutable but not parallel safe?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Functions Immutable but not parallel safe?
Date: 2017-04-05 16:29:34
Message-ID: 20625.1491409774@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/5/17 09:58, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> - Maybe add a check to opr_sanity to make sure the default set of
>>> functions is configured the way we want?

>> That seems like a good idea.

> patch

Looks sane to me, although I wonder if opr_sanity ought to be looking
for any other combinations.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2017-04-05 16:33:13 Re: Implementation of SASLprep for SCRAM-SHA-256
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-05 16:26:49 Re: Functions Immutable but not parallel safe?