| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences |
| Date: | 2024-07-17 03:23:08 |
| Message-ID: | Zpc5HGb7yDfTNDy5@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:30:04AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, I have bumped on the same issue. In the long term, I also think
> that we'd better have pg_sequence_last_value() return a row with
> is_called and the value scanned. As you say, it won't help except
> when upgrading from versions of Postgres that are at least to v18,
> assuming that this change gets in the tree, but that would be much
> better in the long term and time flies fast.
AFAICT pg_sequence_last_value() is basically an undocumented internal
function only really intended for use by the pg_sequences system view, so
changing the function like this for v18 might not be out of the question.
Otherwise, I think we'd have to create a strikingly similar function with
slightly different behavior, which would be a bizarre place to end up.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2024-07-17 03:28:58 | Re: Expand applicability of aggregate's sortop optimization |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-17 03:17:54 | Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping |