From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
cc: Jeff Davis <jdavis@postgresql.org>, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance
 operations.
In-reply-to: <d20864b929ff769a0ebf772359719f05bb6982cd.camel@j-davis.com>
References: <E1q7j7Y-000z1H-Hr@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <89a415b86d5421941e4281ba5bf6288934078624.camel@j-davis.com>
 <d20864b929ff769a0ebf772359719f05bb6982cd.camel@j-davis.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
	message dated "Fri, 09 Jun 2023 17:37:57 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <573013.1686375211.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 01:33:31 -0400
Message-ID: <573014.1686375211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/573014.1686375211%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> Attached a patch to mark those functions as PARALLEL UNSAFE, which
> fixes the problem.

> Alternatively, I could just take out that line, as those SQL functions
> are not controlled by the MAINTAIN privilege. But for consistency I
> think it's a good idea to leave it in so that index functions are
> called with the right search path for amcheck.

I concur with the upthread objection that it is way too late in
the release cycle to be introducing a breaking change like this.
I request that you revert it.

			regards, tom lane