Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension
Date
Msg-id 23542.1522105131@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
... BTW:

# select proname, proparallel from pg_proc where proname like 'binary_upg%';
                  proname                   | proparallel 
--------------------------------------------+-------------
 binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension      | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_array_pg_type_oid  | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_heap_pg_class_oid  | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_index_pg_class_oid | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_pg_authid_oid      | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_pg_enum_oid        | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_pg_type_oid        | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_toast_pg_class_oid | r
 binary_upgrade_set_next_toast_pg_type_oid  | r
 binary_upgrade_set_record_init_privs       | r
(10 rows)

I wonder whether we shouldn't mark *all* of these parallel-unsafe.
I'm not exactly convinced that 'restricted' is sufficient for the
others, and even if it is, there's certainly little if any upside
for letting them be executed in parallel-enabled mode.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension