| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Date: | 2017-04-25 19:17:39 |
| Message-ID: | 16ed823b-44e4-dc51-3da9-a3d66b71ed5c@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 4/25/17 00:26, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So things are broken for sequences since commit 1753b1b0 (adding Peter
> in CC) that has changed the way sequence metadata is handled. The
> failure happens in CatalogTupleUpdate() which uses
> simple_heap_update() that caller can only use if updates are
> concurrent safe. But since 1753b1b0 that is not true as the sequence
> is locked with AccessShareLock.
I think you are confusing locking the sequence versus locking the
pg_sequence catalog. The error is coming from CatalogTupleUpdate() on
pg_sequence, which is locked using RowExclusiveLock, which is what we
use for most DDL commands doing catalog changes.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Danilo Olivares | 2017-04-25 23:40:40 | COPY .. FREEZE, (apparently) not working on 9.6 |
| Previous Message | K S, Sandhya (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) | 2017-04-25 14:54:08 | Re: Crash observed during the start of the Postgres process |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-25 19:26:06 | Re: Re: logical replication and PANIC during shutdown checkpoint in publisher |
| Previous Message | Tels | 2017-04-25 19:17:29 | Re: PG 10 release notes |