> Then why didn't you specified PARALLEL UNSAFE as well?
You are correct, I missed marking the function as PARALLEL UNSAFE.
I’ve attached a revised patch with the correct annotation.
> BTW, yesterday a new thread started with the same requirement [1]. It
> uses a slightly different way to define the new function. do you have
> any opinion on it?
I don’t think introducing a separate function is a good idea. It’s
effectively the same behavior, technical debt, and maintenance
overhead without a clear benefit.
Our patch keeps a single function with a default parameter, so it’s
not a breaking change. So I believe our approach is preferable.
But I would say that, the fact that another patch is proposing the
same capability indicates there’s broader demand for this change.