On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:11 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So, users need to check count(*) for this to determine
> > > > parallel-safety? How about if we provide a wrapper function on top
> > > > of this function or a separate function that returns char to
> > > > indicate whether it is safe, unsafe, or restricted to perform a DML
> > > > operation on the table?
> > >
> > > Such wrapper function make sense.
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion, and I agree.
> > I will add another wrapper function and post new version patches soon.
>
> Attaching new version patches with the following changes:
>
> 0001
> Add a new function pg_get_max_parallel_hazard('table_name') returns char('s', 'u', 'r')
> which indicate whether it is safe, unsafe, or restricted to perform a DML.
Thanks for the patches. I think we should have the table name as
regclass type for pg_get_max_parallel_hazard? See, pg_relation_size,
pg_table_size, pg_filenode_relation and so on.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
