On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:17 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:47:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Or can we make the test script set force_parallel_mode = off? Since
> > the failure case is a very rare in real world I think that it might be
> > better to change the te
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:47:05PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Or can we make the test script set force_parallel_mode = off? Since
> the failure case is a very rare in real world I think that it might be
> better to change the test scripts rather than changing properly of
> current_schema().
P
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 5:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Anyway, it seems to me that this is pointing out to another issue:
> > > current_schema() can trigger a namespace creation, hence shouldn't we
> > > mark it as PARALLEL UNSAFE and make sur
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 09:08:27AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:34:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems hard to avoid. We could conceivably make it return "pg_temp"
>> for the temp schema instead of the schema's actual name, but it's
>> not very hard to think of ways
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:34:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems hard to avoid. We could conceivably make it return "pg_temp"
> for the temp schema instead of the schema's actual name, but it's
> not very hard to think of ways whereby that would make use of the
> result fail in contexts where it
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway, it seems to me that this is pointing out to another issue:
>>> current_schema() can trigger a namespace creation, hence shouldn't we
>>> mark it as PARALLEL UNSAFE and make sure that we never run into this
>>> probl
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:08 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Anyway, it seems to me that this is pointing out to another issue:
> > current_schema() can trigger a namespace creation, hence shouldn't we
> > mark it as PARALLEL UNSAFE and make sure that we never run into this
> > problem?
>
> That seems a bi
