Horton

Re: Re: Unexpected result from ALTER FUNCTION— looks like a bug

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

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.com>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-04-20T02:39:37Z
Lists: pgsql-general 
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 7:07 PM Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.com>
> wrote:
>> This is the bug.

> While I haven't experimented with this for confirmation, what you are
> proposing here (set + parallel safe) is an impossible runtime
> combination (semantic rule) but perfectly valid to write syntactically.

I'm not sure that that's actually disallowed.  In any case, Bryn's
right, the combination of a SET clause and a PARALLEL clause is
implemented incorrectly in AlterFunction.  Careless coding :-(

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix breakage in AlterFunction().