Re: SQL-standard function body
От
Julien Rouhaud
Тема
Re: SQL-standard function body
Дата
Msg-id
20210408111121.lsh6cvwjgk6ku7m5@nol
Ответ на
Re: SQL-standard function body (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos@protonmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: SQL-standard function body Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: SQL-standard function body Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:54:56PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:35:14PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2021-04-08 01:41:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Andres Freund writes: > >> FWIW, I think the long-term drift of things is definitely that > >> we want to have the querystring available everywhere. Code like > >> executor_errposition is from an earlier era before we were trying > >> to enforce that. In particular, if the querystring is available in > >> the leader and not the workers, then you will get different error > >> reporting behavior in parallel query than non-parallel query, which > >> is surely a bad thing. > > > > Yea, I think it's a sensible direction - but I think we should put the > > line in the sand earlier on / higher up than ExecInitParallelPlan(). > > Indeed, I agree that enforcing the availability of querystring > everywhere sounds like a sensible thing to do in terms of consistency, > and that's my impression when I scanned the parallel execution code, > and I don't really get why SQL function bodies should not bind by this > rule. Would people object if I add an open item to track that? It makes sense, +1 for an open item.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления