Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: > > On 3/6/17 12:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> This issue also exists in 9.6, but we obviously can't do anything > >> about 9.6 clusters that already exist. Possibly this could be > >> back-patched so that future 9.6 clusters would come out OK, or > >> possibly we should back-patch some other fix, but that would need more > >> discussion. > > > I think it would be worth back-patching the catalog fix for future 9.6 > > clusters as a start. > > Yes, I think it's rather silly not to do so. We have made comparable > backpatched fixes multiple times in the past. What is worth discussing is > whether there are *additional* things we ought to do in 9.6 to prevent > misbehavior in installations initdb'd pre-9.6.3. > > If there's a cheap way of testing "AmInParallelWorker", I'd be in favor of > adding a quick-n-dirty test and ereport(ERROR) to these functions in the > 9.6 branch, so that at least you get a clean error and not some weird > misbehavior. Not sure if there's anything more we can do than that.
That's more-or-less what I was thinking (and suggested to David over IM a little while ago, actually). I don't know if there's an easy way to do such a check, but I don't think it would really need to be particularly cheap, just not overly complex. These code paths are certainly not ones that need to be high-performance. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature