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

From tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety
Date
Msg-id OSAPR01MB29770B4A8A69884713E7A717FE459@OSAPR01MB2977.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety  ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
From: Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
> For approach 1): I think it could result in infinite recursion.
>
> For example:
> If we first access one built-in function A which have not been cached,
> it need access the pg_proc, When accessing the pg_proc, it internally still need
> some built-in function B to scan.
> At this time, if B is not cached , it still need to fetch function B's parallel flag by
> accessing the pg_proc.proparallel.
> Then it could result in infinite recursion.
>
> So, I think we can consider the approach 2)

Hmm, that makes sense.  That's a problem structure similar to that of relcache.  Only one choice is left already,
unlessthere's another better idea. 



Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: wal stats questions
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: problem with RETURNING and update row movement