Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression
Date
Msg-id 28546.1494534914@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/10/17 12:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Upthread I theorized whether
>> that's actually still meaningful given fastpath locking and such, but I
>> guess we'll have to evaluate that.

> [ with or without contention, fast-path locking beats the extra dance that
> open_share_lock() does. ]

That is pretty cool.  It would be good to verify the same on master,
but assuming it holds up, I think it's ok to remove open_share_lock().
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression