Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Date
Msg-id 1356997.1619193395@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:15 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I'm curious. The FmgrBuiltin struct includes the "strict" flag, so
>>> that would "lock down the value" of the strict flag, wouldn't it?

>> It does, but that's much more directly a property of the function's
>> C code than parallel-safety is.

> I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think having the "strict" flag
> in FmgrBuiltin isn't that nice either.

Yeah, if we could readily do without it, we probably would.  But the
function call mechanism itself is responsible for implementing strictness,
so it *has* to have that flag available.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: A test for replay of regression tests
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table