Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys
Date: 2024-05-01 01:06:04
Message-ID: 1846474.1714525564@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If you create an unlogged sequence on a primary, pg_sequence_last_value()
> for that sequence on a standby will error like so:
> postgres=# select pg_sequence_last_value('test'::regclass);
> ERROR: could not open file "base/5/16388": No such file or directory

> As pointed out a few years ago [0], this function is undocumented, so
> there's no stated contract to uphold. I lean towards just returning NULL
> because that's what we'll have to put in the relevant pg_sequences field
> anyway, but I can see an argument for fixing the ERROR to align with what
> you see when you try to access unlogged relations on a standby (i.e.,
> "cannot access temporary or unlogged relations during recovery").

Yeah, I agree with putting that logic into the function. Putting
such conditions into the SQL of a system view is risky because it
is really, really painful to adjust the SQL in a released version.
You could back-patch a fix for this if done at the C level, but
I doubt we'd go to the trouble if it's done in the view.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-05-01 01:13:17 Re: pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-05-01 00:57:30 pg_sequence_last_value() for unlogged sequences on standbys