Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> (BTW, why aren't these functions just "parallel restricted"?)
> ...
> But it is really pretty arguable whether we should feel responsible
> for that problem. We could just decide that if you're doing that, and
> you don't want the scenario described above to happen, you oughta mark
> the function that contains this logic at least PARALLEL RESTRICTED,
> and if you don't, then it's your fault for doing a dumb thing. I
> believe when we were early on in the development of this we wanted to
> be very conservative lest, ah, someone accuse us of not locking things
> down well enough, but maybe at this point parallel query is a
> sufficiently well-established concept that we should lighten up on
> some cases where we took an overly-stringent line. If we take that
> view, then I'm not sure why these functions couldn't be just marked
> PARALLEL SAFE.
No, there's a sufficient reason why we should force advisory locks
to be taken in the leader process, namely that the behavior is totally
different if we don't: they will disappear at the end of the parallel
worker run, not at end of transaction or session as documented.
However, that argument doesn't seem to be a reason why the advisory-lock
functions couldn't be parallel-restricted rather than parallel-unsafe.
In any case, my question at the moment is whether we need the belt-and-
suspenders-too approach of having both non-parallel-safe marking and an
explicit check inside these functions. We've largely moved away from
hard-wired checks for e.g. superuserness, and surely these things are
less dangerous than most formerly-superuser-only functions.
regards, tom lane
