Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I'm not happy about the idea of marking an input function as not > parallel safe, certainly not without a good deal of thought and > discussion that we don't have time for this cycle.
Yeah, that aspect of it was bothering me too: it's easy to say "mark the function unsafe", but that only helps to the extent that the function is used in queries where the planner has control of whether to parallelize or not. There's an awful lot of hard-wired calls to I/O functions in our code, and I would not want to promise that none of those are reachable in a parallel worker. As for Stephen's concern, I had already looked at reverting 15bc038f9 earlier, and concluded that none of that code had changed significantly since then. There's some conflicts due to pgindent activity but I think pulling it out will be a straightforward thing to do. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers