From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2017-05-12 14:20:02 |
Message-ID: | 50d1aa51-1d3c-1c4d-0548-69d18e2f0972@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 5/11/17 16:34, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> 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?
> Well, right now we don't do proper lock-tracking for sequences, always
> assigning them to the toplevel transaction. But that doesn't seem
> proper when nextval() would conflict with ALTER SEQUENCE et al, because
> then locks would continue to be held by aborted savepoints.
I see what you mean here. We already have this issue with DROP SEQUENCE.
While it would be nice to normalize this, I think it's quite esoteric.
I doubt users have any specific expectations how sequences behave in
aborted subtransactions.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-12 14:20:47 | Re: BUG #14648: counts for queries using array unnesting is incorrect |
Previous Message | K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) | 2017-05-12 13:42:25 | Re: Crash observed during the start of the Postgres process |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neha Khatri | 2017-05-12 14:22:01 | Re: Time based lag tracking for logical replication |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-05-12 14:12:16 | Re: If subscription to foreign table valid ? |