On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 01:09:12AM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
> I don't have much background on the lock levels needed here, but taking
> AccessExclusiveLock upfront seems reasonable given the storage replacement.
> I'm less sure whether it's too strong for cases like OWNED BY.
> [I've sent a diff upthread, can add a patch if that's the right way to go]
>
> Cc'ing Andres, Michael and Peter, who were involved in the original
> sequence locking and transactional changes. Does this approach make
> sense, or am I missing something here?
Where do you mean to add this extra level of locking?
--
Michael
