Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?
Date
Msg-id 1ddcf022-7867-e35d-79fc-bdbffa1bb36e@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/30/18 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>> On 11/30/18 3:30 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>> # And returning to the topic, I vote for pg_config should be "stable".
>
>> And on that note, Does this change does warrant backpatching, or should
>> be applied to master only?
>
> I don't think back-patching the catalog change is really a good idea.
> The amount of work involved (e.g. release-noting how to perform the
> update on existing databases) is way out of proportion to the benefit
> for this particular case.


Closing out at least this part of the thread, committed and pushed,
master only.

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Conflict handling for COPY FROM
Next
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Add missing CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS table_name AS EXECUTEquery;