From: | Doruk Yilmaz <doruk(at)mixrank(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [Patch] add new parameter to pg_replication_origin_session_setup |
Date: | 2025-09-08 17:22:22 |
Message-ID: | CAMPB6wdPtjbR93oB1XJtYkRtTR64BJG4o5a+0DSSez=puuyuGA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Then why didn't you specified PARALLEL UNSAFE as well?
You are correct, I missed marking the function as PARALLEL UNSAFE.
I’ve attached a revised patch with the correct annotation.
> BTW, yesterday a new thread started with the same requirement [1]. It
> uses a slightly different way to define the new function. do you have
> any opinion on it?
I don’t think introducing a separate function is a good idea. It’s
effectively the same behavior, technical debt, and maintenance
overhead without a clear benefit.
Our patch keeps a single function with a default parameter, so it’s
not a breaking change. So I believe our approach is preferable.
But I would say that, the fact that another patch is proposing the
same capability indicates there’s broader demand for this change.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v6-0001-pg_replication_origin_session_setup-pid-parameter.patch | text/x-patch | 5.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-09-08 17:26:56 | Re: magical eref alias names |
Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-09-08 17:06:03 | Re: Potential problem in commit f777d773878 and 4f7f7b03758 |