Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYv8_fE2=t6roC==6FgvjU2Scdp5DsdvfUFoYXD-cwuKg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Parallel safety of CURRENT_* family
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> <5bih4k+4jfl6m39j23k@guerrillamail.com> writes: >>> pg_proc shows that now() is marked as restricted, but transaction_timestamp() is marked as safe. > >> That's certainly silly, because they're equivalent. I should think >> they're both safe. Robert? > > ... well, they would be if we passed down xactStartTimestamp to parallel > workers, but I can't find any code that does that. In view of the fact that > transaction_timestamp() is marked as parallel-safe, this is a bug in 9.6. Yeah. Do you think we should arrange to pass that down, or change the marking? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: