|From:||Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 06/09/2016 10:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Yes, let's fix it. This will also take care of the questions about
>>> whether the GIN/GIST opclass tweaks I made a few months ago require
>>> module version bumps.
>> Tom, there's a patch for this at
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/574F091A.firstname.lastname@example.org which
>> I think you should review, since you were the one who made the tweaks
>> involved. Any chance you can do that RSN?
> I've pushed this with some revisions to make the queries more
> search-path-safe. I'm not too happy with the safety of the queries
> I see already present from the previous patches. I think stuff
> like this:
> UPDATE pg_proc SET proparallel = 's'
> WHERE oid = 'min(citext)'::regprocedure;
> needs to be more like
> UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_proc SET proparallel = 's'
> WHERE oid = 'min(citext)'::pg_catalog.regprocedure;
Good point. While I believe that we can trust that ALTER EXTENSION
handles the search path for the functions of the extension we should
qualify things in pg_catalog.
I have attached a patch which adds the shcema, plus an updated patch for
|Next Message||Andreas Karlsson||2016-06-10 13:00:24||Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions|
|Previous Message||John R Pierce||2016-06-10 10:56:34||Re: [HACKERS] Online DW|