Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 5/20/16 7:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I guess my first question is whether we have consensus on the release
>>> into which we should put this. Some people (Noah, among others)
>>> thought it should wait because we're after feature freeze, while
>>> others thought we should do it now. If we're going to try to get this
>>> into 9.6, I'll work on reviewing this sooner rather than later, but if
>>> we're not going to do that I'm going to postpone dealing with it until
>>> after we branch.
>
>> Sounds to me that this is part of the cleanup of a 9.6 feature and
>> should be in that release.
>
> Yes, let's fix it. This will also take care of the questions about
> whether the GIN/GIST opclass tweaks I made a few months ago require
> module version bumps.

Tom, there's a patch for this at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/574F091A.3050800@proxel.se which
I think you should review, since you were the one who made the tweaks
involved. Any chance you can do that RSN? If we want to get this
done at all, we should really get it into beta2. Also, the patches
Andreas posted for applying parallel-safety markings apply on top of
that, so that needs to go in first, at least for the affected modules.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company