| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(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: [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Date: | 2017-05-11 20:35:14 |
| Message-ID: | 28546.1494534914@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 5/10/17 12:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Upthread I theorized whether
>> that's actually still meaningful given fastpath locking and such, but I
>> guess we'll have to evaluate that.
> [ with or without contention, fast-path locking beats the extra dance that
> open_share_lock() does. ]
That is pretty cool. It would be good to verify the same on master,
but assuming it holds up, I think it's ok to remove open_share_lock().
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-11 20:40:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-11 20:34:33 | Re: [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-11 20:40:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-11 20:34:33 | Re: [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |