Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression
Date: 2017-05-10 17:28:39
Message-ID: 28251.1494437319@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-05-10 10:29:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As long as it doesn't block, the change in lock strength doesn't actually
>> make any speed difference does it?

> The issue isn't the strength, but that we currently have this weird
> hackery around open_share_lock():

Oh! I'd forgotten about that. Yes, if we change that then we'd
need to do some performance checking.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message boshomi 2017-05-10 17:37:50 BUG #14646: performance hint to remove
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-05-10 16:24:50 Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-05-10 18:09:04 Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-05-10 17:13:59 Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()