Dan Ports <d...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Note that this hadn't been a reasonable option until last week > when we added the check for non-MVCC snapshots, since there are > lots of things that use heap scans but SeqScan is the only > (currently-existing) one we want to lock. That is the sort of thing that I tended to notice going through the backtraces from heap access I mentioned in another post, and is most likely the reason the call landed where it did. The MVCC snapshot tests are then a game-changer. It would be nice to find a way not to acquire the relation lock if the node is never used, though. > I am rather uneasy about making changes here unless we can be > absolutely certain they're right... Yeah.... -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
