Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Instead of leaving the locks dangling to an already-destroyed resource
> owner, how about assigning all locks directly to the top-level resource
> owner in one sweep? That'd still be much better than the old way of
> recursively reassigning them up the subtransaction tree, one level at a
> time.
I haven't actually read the patch, but the reason for pushing them up
only one level at a time is that if an intermediate-level subtransaction
aborts, the locks taken by its child subtransactions have to be released
at that time. It sure sounds like this patch broke that.
regards, tom lane