Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat
Date: 2018-10-29 14:08:45
Message-ID: 24015.1540822125@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> Yes, it should be PARALLEL RESTRICTED or PARALLEL UNSAFE, but it won't matter
> much in practice which of the two we choose.

I'd vote for PARALLEL UNSAFE myself. Otherwise you have to ask questions
about whether it's really safe to do this while parallel workers are doing
things. Perhaps the answer is "yes", but what's the point of having to
verify that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2018-10-29 14:10:10 Re: shared-memory based stats collector
Previous Message MichaelDBA 2018-10-29 13:54:56 pgadmin4 and scram