Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> wrote:
>> That was the only clear mistake I found, but I tend
>> to think that changing the markings on anything defined by
>> UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION() is pretty silly, because there's no point in
>> going to extra planner effort to generate a parallel plan only to
>> error out as soon as we try to execute it. I think you should leave
>> all of those out of the patch.
>
> I will fix this.
>
>> I also took a look at the patch for tablefunc. I think that you've
>> got the markings right, here, but I think that it would be good to add
>> PARALLEL UNSAFE explicitly to the 1.1 version of the file for the
>> functions are unsafe, and add a comment like "-- query might do
>> anything" or some other indication as to why they are so marked, for
>> the benefit of future readers.
>
> Good suggestion.

I was kind of hoping you'd have a new version of this posted already.
beta2 is wrapping on Monday, and I'm inclined to shelve anything that
isn't done by then for the next release. And I don't really plan to
work much this weekend.

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