On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 4:35 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 8:35 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, that is correct. How about a comment as follows: > > > /* > > > * Lock the sequence so its identity (namespace and name) cannot change > > > * under us via a concurrent DROP, RENAME or SET SCHEMA while we read it. > > > * The lock is released immediately rather than at transaction end. The > > > * later synchronization does not depend on this captured identity > > > * remaining valid, as it re-opens the sequence and tolerates concurrent > > > * changes. Releasing early also avoids holding one lock per sequence, > > > * which could exhaust the lock table. > > > */ > > > > LGTM. > > > > Thanks, pushed now. >
FYI, somehow the "rather than" wording of the above comment became a "rathen then" typo in the master code [1]. ====== [1] https://github.com/postgres/postgres/commit/c12c101b0846b1e6488f2dc986a852fbc6bf2e3b#diff-e188109d851e85cc74d6bb7543f8ddf2be5cc2764e976ed44a7c82ddcc5ad884R758 Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
