Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> This way if any refactoring is done with this routine, then we don't
> break schema lock logic. Andres, Tom and others, any objections?
I'm still not very happy about this, mainly because it seems like
(a) it's papering over just a small fraction of the true problem
and (b) there's been no discussion about cost-benefit tradeoffs.
What's it going to cost us in terms of additional locking --- not
only performance, but the potential for new deadlock cases ---
and does this really fix enough real-world problems to be worth it?
regards, tom lane
