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