| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Date: | 2017-05-11 15:35:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4c69c740-67e2-34be-3310-c74d4924843b@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 5/10/17 12:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> The issue isn't the strength, but that we currently have this weird
> hackery around open_share_lock():
> /*
> * Open the sequence and acquire AccessShareLock if needed
> *
> * If we haven't touched the sequence already in this transaction,
> * we need to acquire AccessShareLock. We arrange for the lock to
> * be owned by the top transaction, so that we don't need to do it
> * more than once per xact.
> */
>
> This'd probably need to be removed, as we'd otherwise would get very
> weird semantics around aborted subxacts.
Can you explain in more detail what you mean by this?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-05-11 20:27:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Previous Message | bitekas | 2017-05-11 01:28:24 | BUG #14647: pgAdmin crashed |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-11 16:00:18 | Re: renaming "transaction log" |
| Previous Message | Remi Colinet | 2017-05-11 15:24:16 | Re: [PATCH v2] Progress command to monitor progression of long running SQL queries |