Michael Paquier wrote: > It looks that I forgot to mark pg_promote as parallel-restricted in > 1007465 in pg_proc.dat. It seems to me that this is not a huge issue as > system_views.sql redefines the function for its default values and > enforces parallel-restricted, but let's be right from the start. > > Attached is a patch to fix that. Any comments or objections?
Hmm, I should have noticed that. I think that the question if pg_promote allows a parallel plan or not is mostly academic, but the two definitions should be kept in sync. Yours, Laurenz Albe