Re: SQL-standard function body - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SQL-standard function body
Date
Msg-id 1819824.1617858962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL-standard function body  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: SQL-standard function body  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:22:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Buildfarm suggests this has some issues under force_parallel_mode.
>> I'm wondering about missed fields in outfuncs/readfuncs, or the like.

> The problem looks a bit more fundamental to me, as there seems to be
> some confusion with the concept of what should be the query string 
> when it comes to prosqlbody with a parallel run, as it replaces prosrc
> in some cases where the function uses SQL as language.  If the
> buildfarm cannot be put back to green, could it be possible to revert
> this patch?

Andres pushed a stopgap fix.  We might end up reverting the patch
altogether for v14, but I don't want to be hasty.  This should be enough
to let people take advantage of the last few hours before feature freeze.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze)