| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, gajus(at)gajus(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |
| Date: | 2018-11-27 03:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobeRXnG3bjczOfKhNbjdsFk0M9iX+ePOZT1Jd1gmXdSMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:49 PM Andrew Gierth
<andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> I'm a bit more concerned by the fact that inlining the function isn't
> affecting the parallel safety of the query - the fact that parallel
> safety is being checked prior to inlining means that if inlining
> *introduces* a parallel hazard, it will go unnoticed?
If a function is marked parallel-safe but internally calls
parallel-restricted or parallel-unsafe functions, it wasn't really
parallel-safe in the first place. So I think that if inlining
introduces a parallel hazard, the user has mislabeled some functions
and any resulting injury is self-inflicted.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-27 04:04:35 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-11-27 03:55:03 | Re: IMMUTABLE and PARALLEL SAFE function markings |