Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sequence Access Methods, round two
Date: 2024-03-14 00:40:29
Message-ID: ZfJHfTU0yijCesSo@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 07:00:37AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I don't understand what the overall benefit of this change is supposed to
> be.

In the context of this thread, this removes the dependency of sequence
value lookup to heap.

> If this route were to be pursued, it should be a different function name.
> We shouldn't change the signature of an existing function.

I'm not so sure about that. The existing pg_sequence_last_value is
undocumented and only used in a system view.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2024-03-14 00:59:15 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2024-03-14 00:26:28 Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?