Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions
Date: 2016-05-25 01:43:16
Message-ID: 20160525014316.GV21416@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

All,

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
> > On 05/25/2016 02:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I'd rather extend see us ALTER AGGREGATE to do this.
>
> > Wouldn't that prevent this from going into 9.6? I do not think changing
> > ALTER AGGREGATE is 9.6 materials.
>
> Well, it's debatable --- but if the patch to do it is small and the
> alternatives are really ugly, that would be an acceptable choice IMO.
> Certainly we'd want to add that capability eventually anyway.

I tend to agree with Tom on this. This should really have been included
in the earlier patches, but there's no help for that and if it's a small
patch and the other options are far worse then we need to accept that
solution and move on.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-05-25 01:49:51 Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-05-25 01:37:44 Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions