On 11/09/2023 15:00, David Rowley wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 21:44, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
index 296dc82d2ee..edb8b6026e5 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/discard.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/discard.c
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ DiscardAll(bool isTopLevel)
Async_UnlistenAll();
- LockReleaseAll(USER_LOCKMETHOD, true);
+ LockReleaseSession(USER_LOCKMETHOD);
ResetPlanCache();
This assumes that there are no transaction-level advisory locks. I think
that's OK. It took me a while to convince myself of that, though. I
think we need a high level comment somewhere that explains what
assumptions we make on which locks can be held in session mode and which
in transaction mode.
Isn't it ok because DISCARD ALL cannot run inside a transaction block,
so there should be no locks taken apart from possibly session-level
locks?
Hmm, sounds valid. I think I convinced myself that it's OK through some
other reasoning, but I don't remember it now.
I've added a call to LockAssertNoneHeld(false) in there.
I don't see it in the patch?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
