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
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: