On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 09/26/2017 02:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... and the buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like force_parallel_mode > >> breaks all the regression test cases around unsafe enums; which on > >> reflection is unsurprising, because parallel workers will not have access > >> to the parent's blacklist hash, so they will think unsafe values are safe. > > > I think I would mark enum_in and friends as parallel-restricted. Yes I > > know it would involve a cat version bump, so I'll understand if that's > > not acceptable, but it seems to me the best of a bad bunch of choices. > > Second choice might be turning off parallel mode if the hash exists, but > > I'm unclear how that would work. > > Meh. I'm starting to slide back to my original opinion that we should > revert back to 9.6 behavior. Even if a post-RC1 catversion bump is OK, > making these sorts of changes a week before GA is not comfort inducing. > I'm losing faith that we've thought through the issue thoroughly, and > there's no longer time to catch any remaining oversights through testing. > > Any other votes out there?
Well, I was concerned yesterday that we had a broken build farm so close to release. (I got consistent regression failures.) I think PG 11 would be better for this feature change, so I support reverting this. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
