Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
Date: 2021-12-18 21:51:07
Message-ID: 1639549.1639864267@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
> SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?

Right.

> That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be.

As I said, we've accepted worse in order to have stable replication
behavior.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2021-12-18 22:10:42 Re: [PATCH] psql: \dn+ to show size of each schema (and \dA+ for AMs)
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2021-12-18 21:48:11 Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication