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

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?
Date
Msg-id 20181129230300.vkj3csjwk7jt2cfv@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_config wrongly marked as not parallel safe?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-11-29 16:23:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Generally, I think Andres is wrong to argue that immutability
> shouldn't mean *anything* across major versions.  If we can readily
> foresee that something is going to change in the future, then we
> shouldn't mark it immutable. However:

I was too glib/brief. All I meant is that we shouldn't take immutable to
*guarantee* anything across major versions. We, of course, shouldn't
break things willy-nilly, and consider the consequences of such
potential breaking changes. Including having to reindex. It's not like
that's only the case for changing immutable functions, the index storage
itself etc also matter.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GnuTLS support
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change "checkpoint starting" message to use "wal"