On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andr...@proxel.se> wrote: >> dblink: Isn't changing dblink_fdw_validator pointless? The others I get. > > Yeah, but since it is just one function I think it makes sense to change it > when we already are bumping the version of the extension. I think it makes > sense to skip whole extensions, like chkpass or bloom, but if it is just a > few functions where it does not matter, why not tag them as safe? Personally > I think the churn which really matters is if we have to bump the extension > version or not.
I broadly agree with that, but I'm slightly wary about giving people the idea that parallel-safety will be checked in cases where it really will not. The stuff that gets tested for parallel-safety is the stuff actually mentioned in the query. Indirectly-referenced stuff will not get tested, but if we start marking it that way, then we might create confusion. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
