Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, it has subplans, so formally I think it's restricted not unsafe
>> --- but the parallel_safe marking on constructed paths/plans is only
>> safe/not-safe, not a three-way.
> True, but when parallel_safe it not set, that means it's not
> parallel-safe, so either parallel-restricted or parallel-unsafe. But
> if parallelModeOK is true, then it had better be parallel-restricted,
> not parallel-unsafe.
Ah, I see.
> So I still don't see what's wrong here, other than that the comment is
> evidently not half clear enough.
I can get on board with that statement. Can you draft a better wording?
regards, tom lane