Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a PoC demonstrating this idea. I'm not convinced it's the right
> way to deal with this - it surely seems more like a duct tape fix than a
> clean solution. But it does the trick.
I was imagining something a whole lot simpler, like "don't try to
cache unused sequence numbers when wal_level > minimal". We've
accepted worse performance hits in that operating mode, and it'd
fix a number of user complaints we've seen about weird sequence
behavior on standbys.
regards, tom lane