Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> Seems reasonable. Really, I think we should look for a way to hang
> onto the relation at the point where it's originally opened and locked
> instead of reopening it here. But that's probably more invasive than
> we can really justify right at the moment, and I think this is a step
> in a good direction.
The existing coding there makes me itch a bit, because there's only a
rather fragile line of reasoning justifying the assumption that there is a
pre-existing lock at all. So I'd be in favor of what you suggest just to
get rid of the "open(NoLock)" hazard. But I agree that it'd be rather
invasive and right now is probably not the time for it.
regards, tom lane
