| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
| Date: | 2016-05-31 22:48:18 |
| Message-ID: | 574E14B2.6040306@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/31/2016 06:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that, your original approach of manually updating proargtypes in the
> existing pg_proc row for the functions may be the best way. Anything else
> is going to be more complicated and ultimately will still require at least
> one direct catalog update.
It is the least ugly of all the ugly solutions I could think of. I have
attached a patch which fixes the signatures using this method. I use
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION to update to catcache. What do you think? Is
it too ugly?
Andreas
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| gin-gist-signatures-v1.patch.gz | application/gzip | 24.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter van Hardenberg | 2016-06-01 00:04:14 | Re: JSON[B] arrays are second-class citizens |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-31 22:20:26 | Re: JSON[B] arrays are second-class citizens |