Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Jason Petersen <jason@citusdata.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-05-19T12:31:15Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> There's still weird behaviour, unfortunately.  If you do an ALTER
> SEQUENCE changing minval/maxval w/ restart in a transaction, and abort,
> you'll a) quite possibly not be able to use the sequence anymore,
> because it may of bounds b) DDL still isn't transactional.

Your emails would be a bit easier to understand if you included a few
more words.

I'm guessing "may of bounds" is supposed to say "may be out of bounds"?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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