Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family
Дата
Msg-id 9244.1480620763@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> <5bih4k+4jfl6m39j23k@guerrillamail.com> writes:
>> pg_proc shows that now() is marked as restricted, but transaction_timestamp() is marked as safe.

> That's certainly silly, because they're equivalent.  I should think
> they're both safe.  Robert?

... well, they would be if we passed down xactStartTimestamp to parallel
workers, but I can't find any code that does that.  In view of the fact that
transaction_timestamp() is marked as parallel-safe, this is a bug in 9.6.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Broken SSL tests in master
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Broken SSL tests in master