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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
