Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I find this fairly ugly. If you can't make the cost of checking
> whether parallelism is safe low enough that you don't need a setting
> for this, then I think perhaps you shouldn't have the feature at all.
> In other words, I propose that you revert both this and 05c8482f7f and
> come back when you have a better design that doesn't introduce so much
> overhead.
I'm +1 on that idea for a completely independent reason: 05c8482f7f
is currently the easy winner for "scariest patch of the v14 cycle".
I don't have any faith in it, and so I'm very concerned that it went
in so late in the dev cycle. It'd be better to push some successor
design early in the v15 cycle, when we'll have more time to catch
problems.
regards, tom lane