| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sequence's value can be rollback after a crashed recovery. |
| Date: | 2021-11-23 22:13:14 |
| Message-ID: | 5F9F6F84-5948-4BA9-8080-DAA939B2B011@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/23/21, 1:41 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I wonder though if we shouldn't try to improve the existing text.
>> The phrasing "never rolled back" seems like it's too easily
>> misinterpreted. Maybe rewrite the <caution> block like
>> ...
>
> A bit of polishing later, maybe like the attached.
The doc updates look good to me. Yesterday I suggested possibly
adding a way to ensure that nextval() called in an uncommitted
transaction was persistent, but I think we'd have to also ensure that
synchronous replication waits for those records, too. Anyway, I don't
think it is unreasonable to require the transaction to be committed to
avoid duplicates from nextval().
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Brindle | 2021-11-23 22:39:12 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-23 22:02:12 | Re: Post-CVE Wishlist |