Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat
Date
Msg-id 24015.1540822125@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
Responses Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> Yes, it should be PARALLEL RESTRICTED or PARALLEL UNSAFE, but it won't matter
> much in practice which of the two we choose.

I'd vote for PARALLEL UNSAFE myself.  Otherwise you have to ask questions
about whether it's really safe to do this while parallel workers are doing
things.  Perhaps the answer is "yes", but what's the point of having to
verify that?

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: MichaelDBA
Date:
Subject: pgadmin4 and scram
Next
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: shared-memory based stats collector