Horton

Re: Parallel safety of binary_upgrade_create_empty_extension

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-03-26T22:53:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Here's a single character patch to mark
> that function PARALLEL UNSAFE.

Ugh.  Clearly a bug.

> Obviously that'll affect only newly
> initdb'd clusters after this patch, but that's what people have in a
> pg_upgrade scenario.

We're a bit fortunate on that.  I wonder if there's some less
trial-and-error way of discovering that functions are or are not
parallel safe.

> This goes back to d89f06f0482 so I think it should probably be
> back-patched to 9.6 and 10.

Roger, will do.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix bogus provolatile/proparallel markings on a few built-in functions.