Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> > From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> >> No. You'd have to be superuser anyway to do that, and we're not in the
> >> habit of trying to put training wheels on superusers.
>
> > Understood. However, we may add the parallel safety member in fmgr_builtins[] in another thread for parallel INSERT SELECT. I'd appreciate your comment on this if you see any concern.
>
> [ raised eyebrow... ] I find it very hard to understand why that would
> be necessary, or even a good idea. Not least because there's no spare
> room there; you'd have to incur a substantial enlargement of the
> array to add another flag. But also, that would indeed lock down
> the value of the parallel-safety flag, and that seems like a fairly
> bad idea.
>

I'm curious. The FmgrBuiltin struct includes the "strict" flag, so
that would "lock down the value" of the strict flag, wouldn't it?

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia