Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
>> dblink: Isn't changing dblink_fdw_validator pointless? The others I get.
>
> Yeah, but since it is just one function I think it makes sense to change it
> when we already are bumping the version of the extension. I think it makes
> sense to skip whole extensions, like chkpass or bloom, but if it is just a
> few functions where it does not matter, why not tag them as safe? Personally
> I think the churn which really matters is if we have to bump the extension
> version or not.

I broadly agree with that, but I'm slightly wary about giving people
the idea that parallel-safety will be checked in cases where it really
will not. The stuff that gets tested for parallel-safety is the stuff
actually mentioned in the query. Indirectly-referenced stuff will not
get tested, but if we start marking it that way, then we might create
confusion.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company