From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Restrict the use of temporary namespace in two-phase
 transaction
In-reply-to: <20190118005949.GD1883@paquier.xyz>
References: <E1gkHvw-00010c-3O@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <20190118005949.GD1883@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:59:49 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <25290.1547773687.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 20:08:07 -0500
Message-ID: <25291.1547773687@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> I have been monitoring the buildfarm and crake is complaining:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=crake&br=HEAD

> I am actually amazed to see the planner choose a parallel plan for
> that,

That's due to force_parallel_mode = regress, I imagine.

> Anyway, it seems to me that this is pointing out to another issue:
> current_schema() can trigger a namespace creation, hence shouldn't we
> mark it as PARALLEL UNSAFE and make sure that we never run into this
> problem?

That seems a bit annoying, but maybe we have little choice?

			regards, tom lane