| From: | Philippe Ferreira <phil(dot)f(at)worldonline(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug with sequences and WAL ? |
| Date: | 2006-02-04 10:43:17 |
| Message-ID: | 43E48545.6060604@worldonline.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>I don't think this is very important, because the normal behavior of
>sequences is that after a crash the sequence can be up to 32 (IIRC)
>counts beyond the last value actually delivered before the crash.
>To get "exact" restart behavior we'd need to emit a separate xlog
>record for each nextval() command, which seems like a pretty high
>price considering that you cannot assume no holes in the sequence
>values anyway.
>
>
Hi,
You are right. I've already seen sequences increase up to 24 or 32 after
a failover with PITR.
However, I'm also using PITR in order to do switchover. In this case, I
think that nothing
should change...
But, I recognize that using PITR for switchover is rather an
"unsupported" functionnality...
Thank you,
Philippe Ferreira.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-02-04 11:04:47 | Re: Should I use PL/PGSQL or Perl/PGSQL? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-04 06:16:55 | Re: Socket command type I unknown |