Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

On 05/25/2016 03:09 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> - Do you think we should add PARALLEL UNSAFE to the functions which we know
>>> are unsafe to make it obvious that it is intentional?
>>
>> That seems likely unnecessary churn from here.
>
> A general point here is that there's no point in marking a function
> PARALLEL SAFE unless it's going to be referenced in a query. So for
> example I'm pretty sure the parallel markings on blhandler() don't
> matter at all, and therefore there's no need to update the bloom
> contrib module. Yeah, that function might get called, but it's not
> going to be mentioned textually in the query.
>
> I think this patch can get somewhat smaller if you update it that way.
> I suggest merging the function and aggregate stuff together and
> instead splitting this by contrib module.

Ok, then I can avoid touching all functions which are only called by
operator classes, tsearch, pls, fdws, etc. Which also means that there
is no need to care about Tom's changes to the signatures of GIN and GiST
support functions.

I am also fine with splitting it per extension.

Thanks for the feedback. I aim to find the time to incorporate it in a
new set of patches the upcoming couple of days.

Andreas