Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Jason Petersen <jason@citusdata.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-05-12T14:20:02Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 
On 5/11/17 16:34, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> 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?
> Well, right now we don't do proper lock-tracking for sequences, always
> assigning them to the toplevel transaction.  But that doesn't seem
> proper when nextval() would conflict with ALTER SEQUENCE et al, because
> then locks would continue to be held by aborted savepoints.

I see what you mean here.  We already have this issue with DROP SEQUENCE.

While it would be nice to normalize this, I think it's quite esoteric.
I doubt users have any specific expectations how sequences behave in
aborted subtransactions.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Make ALTER SEQUENCE, including RESTART, fully transactional.

  2. Modify sequence catalog tuple before invoking post alter hook.

  3. Use weaker locks when updating pg_subscription_rel

  4. Add pg_sequence system catalog

  5. Modify sequence state storage to eliminate dangling-pointer problem