| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4 |
| Date: | 2018-05-10 19:38:34 |
| Message-ID: | 35421406-0E8A-4DFC-AD09-64E9B81757D3@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On May 10, 2018, at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The release notes say:
>> ALTER FUNCTION pg_catalog.ts_rewrite(tsquery, tsquery, tsquery) PARALLEL
>> UNSAFE;
>
>> But when I pull pg_proc.h from 10.4, I find:
>> DATA(insert OID = 3684 ( ts_rewrite PGNSP PGUID 12 1 0 0 0 f f f f t f i s
>> 3 0 3615 "3615 3615 3615" ...
>
>> Which I think means the function is still marked parallel safe. Am I
>> missing something?
>
> Oh ... that's a mistake in the release notes :-(. The 3-argument form of
> ts_rewrite doesn't execute any user-supplied query; AFAICS it's not any
> less safe than anything else. The 2-argument form runs a user-supplied
> query string, and *does* need to be marked unsafe. So the patch got
> it right, but then we got confused while making the notes.
Updated notes in news section. Unfortunately too late to update email :(
Thanks,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-10 19:45:12 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-10 19:37:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) |