On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:55:45PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On April 27, 2017 12:06:55 AM PDT, Michael Paquier > > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > >>wrote: > >>> More fun: > >>> > >>> A: CREATE SEQUENCE someseq; > >>> A: BEGIN; > >>> A: ALTER SEQUENCE someseq MAXVALUE 10; > >>> B: SELECT nextval('someseq') FROM generate_series(1, 1000); > >>> > >>> => ignores maxvalue > >> > >>Well, for this one that's because the catalog change is > >>transactional... > > > > Or because the locking model is borked. > > The operation actually relies heavily on the fact that the exclusive > lock on the buffer of pg_sequence is hold until the end of the catalog > update. And using heap_inplace_update() seems mandatory to me as the > metadata update should be non-transactional, giving the attached. I > have added some isolation tests. Thoughts? The attached makes HEAD map > with the pre-9.6 behavior.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers