On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote: >> That was the only clear mistake I found, but I tend >> to think that changing the markings on anything defined by >> UNSUPPORTED_FUNCTION() is pretty silly, because there's no point in >> going to extra planner effort to generate a parallel plan only to >> error out as soon as we try to execute it. I think you should leave >> all of those out of the patch. > > I will fix this. > >> I also took a look at the patch for tablefunc. I think that you've >> got the markings right, here, but I think that it would be good to add >> PARALLEL UNSAFE explicitly to the 1.1 version of the file for the >> functions are unsafe, and add a comment like "-- query might do >> anything" or some other indication as to why they are so marked, for >> the benefit of future readers. > > Good suggestion.
Advertising
I was kind of hoping you'd have a new version of this posted already. beta2 is wrapping on Monday, and I'm inclined to shelve anything that isn't done by then for the next release. And I don't really plan to work much this weekend. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
