Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I follow all of your reasoning except this. If we believe that the
>> parallel worker context line is useful, then it is a bug that plpgsql
>> suppresses it. If we don't believe it's useful, then we should get
>> rid of it. "Do nothing" is simply not a consistent stance here.
> Well, if PL/pgsql suppresses context and nobody's complained about
> that up until now, fixing it doesn't seem any more urgent than any
> other bug we've had for N releases.
I have not dug into the code enough to find out exactly what's happening
in Peter's complaint, but it seems like it would be a good idea to find
that out before arguing along these lines. It seems entirely likely
to me that this is somehow parallel-query-specific. Even if it isn't,
I don't buy your argument. Adding a new case in which context is
suppressed is a perfectly reasonable basis for thinking that an old
bug has acquired new urgency.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
