Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sequences vs. synchronous replication
Date: 2021-12-20 14:31:11
Message-ID: f4dd81e9-fc9e-3b71-0a8a-4a5ae345331d@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 18.12.21 22:48, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> What do you mean by "not caching unused sequence numbers"? Reducing
> SEQ_LOG_VALS to 1, i.e. WAL-logging every sequence increment?
>
> That'd work, but I wonder how significant the impact will be. It'd bet
> it hurts the patch adding logical decoding of sequences quite a bit.

It might be worth testing. This behavior is ancient and has never
really been scrutinized since it was added.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-12-20 14:44:32 Re: psql format output
Previous Message John Naylor 2021-12-20 14:24:40 Re: speed up verifying UTF-8