Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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