On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > To me that appears to be an oversight rather than intentional. A > somewhat annoying one at that, because it's not uncommong to use COPY to > execute reports to a CSV file and such. > > Robert, am I missing a complication?
No, I think that would work. > I personally think we should fix this in 9.6 and 10, but I've to admit > I'm not entirely impartial, because Citus hit this... I guess it's a matter of judgement whether you want to call this a bug or a missing feature. I wasn't really laboring under any illusion that I'd found every place that could benefit from a CURSOR_OPT_PARALLEL_OK marking, so it may be that in the future we'll find more such places and, well, where do you draw the line? That having been said, I don't know of any particular reason why this particular change would carry much risk. My tolerance for optional changes in back branches is lower than many people here, so if it were me, I'd probably fix it only in master. However, I can't get too excited about it either way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers