Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYoisfDs4yw5K0JkoDmd7y60R16XvC+-uzHHFgvCD9-tA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:53 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't parallel safety also the C code property?

In my opinion, yes.

> So, isn't it better to disallow changing parallel
> safety for built-in functions?

Superusers can do a lot of DML operations on the system catalogs that
are manifestly unsafe. I think we should really consider locking that
down somehow, but I doubt it makes sense to treat this case separately
from all the others. What do you think will happen if you change
proargtypes?

> Also, if the strict property of built-in functions is fixed
> internally, why we allow users to change it and is that of any help?

One real application of allowing these sorts of changes is letting
users correct things that were done wrong originally without waiting
for a new major release.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeff Davis
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Следующее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: few ideas for pgbench