On 2017-05-15 10:34:02 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 5/10/17 09:12, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Looking at 0001 and 0002... So you are correctly blocking nextval()
> > when ALTER SEQUENCE holds a lock on the sequence object. And
> > concurrent calls of nextval() don't conflict. As far as I can see this
> > matches the implementation of 3.
> > 
> > Here are some minor comments.
> 
> Committed after working in your comments.  Thanks!

There's still weird behaviour, unfortunately.  If you do an ALTER
SEQUENCE changing minval/maxval w/ restart in a transaction, and abort,
you'll a) quite possibly not be able to use the sequence anymore,
because it may of bounds b) DDL still isn't transactional.

At the very least that'd need to be documented.

- Andres


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

Reply via email to