Re: [bug?] Missed parallel safety checks, and wrong parallel safety

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see here we have a mix of opinions from various people. Dilip seems
> to be favoring the approach where we provide some option to the user
> for partitioned tables and automatic behavior for non-partitioned
> tables but he also seems to have mild concerns about this behavior.
> OTOH, Greg and Hou-San seem to favor an approach where we can provide
> an option to the user for both partitioned and non-partitioned tables.
> I am also in favor of providing an option to the user for the sake of
> consistency in behavior and not trying to introduce a special kind of
> invalidation as it doesn't serve the purpose for partitioned tables.
> Robert seems to be in favor of automatic behavior but it is not very
> clear to me if he is fine with dealing differently for partitioned and
> non-partitioned relations. Robert, can you please provide your opinion
> on what do you think is the best way to move forward here?

I thought we had agreed on handling partitioned and unpartitioned
tables differently, but maybe I misunderstood the discussion.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com