Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4
Date
Msg-id 23502.1525972577@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to ts_rewrite in 10.4  (Douglas Doole <dougdoole@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: ts_rewrite in 10.4  ("Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Douglas Doole <dougdoole@gmail.com> writes:
> The release notes say:
> ALTER FUNCTION pg_catalog.ts_rewrite(tsquery, tsquery, tsquery) PARALLEL
> UNSAFE;

> But when I pull pg_proc.h from 10.4, I find:
> DATA(insert OID = 3684 (  ts_rewrite PGNSP PGUID 12 1 0 0 0 f f f f t f i s
> 3 0 3615 "3615 3615 3615" ...

> Which I think means the function is still marked parallel safe. Am I
> missing something?

Oh ... that's a mistake in the release notes :-(.  The 3-argument form of
ts_rewrite doesn't execute any user-supplied query; AFAICS it's not any
less safe than anything else.  The 2-argument form runs a user-supplied
query string, and *does* need to be marked unsafe.  So the patch got
it right, but then we got confused while making the notes.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?