From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Include sequence relation support in logical replication |
Date: | 2020-03-26 06:56:33 |
Message-ID: | 20200326065633.GI1471@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:27:28PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-03-24 16:19:21 -0700, Cary Huang wrote:
>> For the replication to make sense, the patch actually disables the WAL
>> update at every 32 nextval() calls, so every call to nextval() will
>> emit a WAL update for proper replication. This is done by setting
>> SEQ_LOG_VALS to 0 in sequence.c
>
> Why is that needed? ISTM updating in increments of 32 is fine for
> replication purposes? It's good imo, because sending out more granular
> increments would increase the size of the WAL stream?
Once upon a time, I was looking at the effects of playing with the
limit of a WAL record generated every 32 increments for a sequence,
and the performance difference is huge and noticeable.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Surafel Temesgen | 2020-03-26 07:22:26 | Re: A rather hackish POC for alternative implementation of WITH TIES |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-03-26 06:52:38 | Re: [DOC] Document concurrent index builds waiting on each other |