Re: pg_sequence catalog

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_sequence catalog
Date: 2016-08-31 15:41:53
Message-ID: 20160831154153.nabgqkywwh7accw6@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-08-31 11:23:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another issue is what is the low-level interlock between nextvals
> in different processes. Right now it's the buffer lock on the
> sequence's page. With a scheme like this, if we just kept doing
> that, we'd have a single lock covering probably O(100) different
> sequences which might lead to contention problems. We could probably
> improve on that with some thought.

I was thinking of forcing the rows to be spread to exactly one page per
sequence...

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-08-31 15:51:53 Re: Optimizing aggregates
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2016-08-31 15:32:42 proposal: psql \setfileref