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

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> "tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> writes:
> > From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> >> No.  You'd have to be superuser anyway to do that, and we're not in the
> >> habit of trying to put training wheels on superusers.
>
> > Understood.  However, we may add the parallel safety member in fmgr_builtins[] in another thread for parallel
INSERTSELECT.  I'd appreciate your comment on this if you see any concern.
 
>
> [ raised eyebrow... ]  I find it very hard to understand why that would
> be necessary, or even a good idea.  Not least because there's no spare
> room there; you'd have to incur a substantial enlargement of the
> array to add another flag.  But also, that would indeed lock down
> the value of the parallel-safety flag, and that seems like a fairly
> bad idea.
>

I'm curious. The FmgrBuiltin struct includes the "strict" flag, so
that would "lock down the value" of the strict flag, wouldn't it?

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia