Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Date
Msg-id 700541.1618971760@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>)
Responses RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>)
Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> writes:
> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> No.  You'd have to be superuser anyway to do that, and we're not in the
>> habit of trying to put training wheels on superusers.

> Understood.  However, we may add the parallel safety member in fmgr_builtins[] in another thread for parallel INSERT
SELECT. I'd appreciate your comment on this if you see any concern. 

[ raised eyebrow... ]  I find it very hard to understand why that would
be necessary, or even a good idea.  Not least because there's no spare
room there; you'd have to incur a substantial enlargement of the
array to add another flag.  But also, that would indeed lock down
the value of the parallel-safety flag, and that seems like a fairly
bad idea.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Table refer leak in logical replication
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Docs: Move parallel_leader_participation GUC description under relevant category