On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 6:24 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Having said that, I'm fine with the idea of just marking these
> > parallel-restricted in HEAD and ignoring the problem in the back
> > branches.
>
> Hearing no complaints, done that way.
Although I thought that backpatching would b
I wrote:
> Having said that, I'm fine with the idea of just marking these
> parallel-restricted in HEAD and ignoring the problem in the back
> branches.
Hearing no complaints, done that way.
regards, tom lane
BTW, just for the archives' sake: inet_client_addr() and
inet_client_port() also access MyProcPort, so they'd also have
this issue, except that they're already marked parallel-restricted.
So somebody just missed the server equivalents when marking the
parallel safety of built-in functions.
contrib
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> While investigating a customer issue it's turned out that if a
> parallel worker executes inet_server_addr() and inet_server_port() the
> results are always null because MyProcPort is not set in parallel
> workers.
Check.
> To fix this issue, I think there are two optio
Hi,
While investigating a customer issue it's turned out that if a
parallel worker executes inet_server_addr() and inet_server_port() the
results are always null because MyProcPort is not set in parallel
workers. We can reproduce it in all supported versions higher than
9.6. Here is an example:
p
