Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > Which leads to to wonder whether the better fix would be to switch to deleting > the last element, but still use the while (!empty) style. That should convert > the O(n^2) due to 1cff1b9 back to O(n). It might or might not be faster/slower > than using foreach(), but it should be within the same ballpark.
Does it matter what order we're releasing the locks in?
regards, tom lane
