Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

From: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
To: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions
Date: 2016-06-16 14:02:17
Message-ID: b8862599-2840-68e8-55f7-cb5fd181753c@timbira.com.br
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01-06-2016 20:52, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I think at least three of the four aggregate functions are little used,
> so I do not think many users would be affected. And only min(citext) and
> max(citext) can make use of the parallel aggregation.
>
> The functions are:
>
> min(citext)
> max(citext)
> int_array_aggregate(int4)
> rewrite(tsquery[])
>
I don't think those functions are used a lot (as you said) to justify
adding more code in 9.6. Let's not be in a hurry on something that can
wait some months.

--
Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2016-06-16 14:35:56 Re: pg_upgrade vs vacuum_cost_delay
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2016-06-16 13:15:28 Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions